Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Anjani Technoplast Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Exports) on 17 May, 2023
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CUSAA 178/2022 & CM APPL. 51160/2022
M/S ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish,
Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish,
Ms. Divya Rastogi & Mr.
Amit Saxena, Advs. along
with Mrs. Lavina Gupta,
appellant in person
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr.SC
with Mr. Gautam Barnwal
& Mr. Kumar Abhishek,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 17.05.2023
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the learned Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter "CESTAT"), whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application for restoration of his appeal that was dismissed for want of making a necessary pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter 'the Customs Act').
2. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the Order-in- Original dated 10.10.2014, whereby a duty of ₹5,96,03,154.51/- was confirmed. The said duty was imposed on account of the appellant failing to discharge his export obligations against advance authorisations. It is the appellant's case that it had This is a digitally signed order.
CUSAA 178/2022 Page 1 of 3The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 10:22:27 discharged export obligations to a substantial extent (47%) but the obligations had fallen short by 53% of the total obligations. The appellant claims that it was only required to pay the corresponding duty and penalty on the said amount. The said contention was not accepted.
3. The appellant had preferred an appeal to the learned CESTAT which, as stated above, was rejected for want of pre- deposit by an order dated 13.03.2015. The appellant assailed the said order before this Court which too was rejected by an order dated 20.10.2015.
4. The appellant herein carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the said appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 23.01.2017. The review petition against the said order was also dismissed on 06.12.2017. The appellant, thereafter, applied for an extension of the period to discharge his export obligations. The said request was considered and allowed by the Policy Relaxation Committee (hereafter 'PRC') on 07.01.2020.
5. The PRC concluded that there was a genuine hardship in this case and, therefore, extended the export obligation period for a further period of twelve months from the date of endorsement. The export obligation period was extended up to 11.11.2021.
6. The petitioner claims that it had deposited the duty commensurate with its failure to complete the obligations. Thereafter, on 10.03.2022, additional DGFT issued a redemption letter Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (hereafter 'EODC'), in respect of the advanced authorisation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 31.05.2022 for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 08.08.2022. The petitioner also deposited the requisite amount This is a digitally signed order.
CUSAA 178/2022 Page 2 of 3The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 10:22:27 (7.5% of the disputed duty) for maintaining the said appeal.
7. According to the appellant, the first appeal was held to be non-maintainable on account of the want of pre-deposit. He has, thereafter, made the deposit and, therefore, is entitled to restoration of the appeal. The only question being whether the period of delay was satisfactorily explained.
8. After some arguments, Mr. Ojha, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks time to take instructions as to the stand of the respondent that, whether there is merit in the appellant's contention that the levy of duty as adjudicated, is excessive, considering that he has already received an EODC.
9. List on 10.07.2023.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 17, 2023 "SS"
This is a digitally signed order.
CUSAA 178/2022 Page 3 of 3The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 10:22:28