IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16213 of 2006(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.A.TEX TECH PVT.LTD, 443, KAMARAJ ROAD, THIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S..SREENIVASAN. 2. SRI GARMENTS, 440 KAMARAJ ROAD, THIRUPPUR, TAMILNADU, REPRESENTED BYITS PROPRIETOR.S.SREENIVASAN. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (DBK), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AREARS SECTION)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (ICD), THIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU. 4. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), ]CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16213 of 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1 SERIES- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17.1.05 AND 14.1.05 EXT.P2- COPIES OF THE REPLY DATED 28.1.05 AND 27.1.05 EXT.P3 SERIES- COPIES OF ORDERS OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.4.05 EXT.P4 SERIES- COPY OF THE APPEALS EXT.P5 SERIES- COPY OF THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS EXT.P6- COPY OF THE CHALLAN (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).16213/2006 ....................... Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P3 and P5 series. Petitioners seek a direction for the disposal of Ext.P4 series of appeals. 2. According to the petitioners, they were issued Ext.P1 series of notices, requiring to produce proof of repatriation of export receipts in respect of the duty drawback availed of by them. Since documents were lost, they filed Ext.P2 series of replies seeking time for complying with Ext.P1 series of notices. However, without giving time as sought for, they were issued Ext.P3 series requiring remittance of Rs.7,30,060/- and Rs.98,788/-. 3. It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P3, they filed Ext.P4 series of appeals along with the prayer for dispensation of remittance of pre-deposit. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeals, recovery proceedings were initiated and under compulsion, they had to remit Rs.20,000/- W.P.(C).16213/06 2 evidenced by Ext.P6. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above. 4. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents show that under Rule 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1995, the drawback received by an exporter is to be recovered if sale proceeds in respect of exported goods have not been realised within the prescribed period of six months or the extended period. It is stated that the petitioners did not produce proof in respect of such realisation and therefore, they were issued Ext.P1, to produce documentary evidence of realisation of export proceeds. By Ext.P2, they sought time to produce documents, but they did not produce any documents even thereafter. It was in these circumstances, Ext.P3 notices were issued calling upon them to make payment as mentioned therein and informing that on failure, recovery proceedings will be initiated under Section 142 of the Customs Act, without further notice. 5. It is stated that they filed Ext.P4 series of appeals along with a request for waiver of pre-deposit and for condonation W.P.(C).16213/06 3 of delay and that since the delay was beyond the condonable limit, appeals were rejected. They did not file any further appeals to the appellate authority viz., CESTAT/JSRA. Therefore Ext.P5 detention notice was issued. It is stated that even in respect of Ext.P5, belatedly appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and that also were barred by limitation. 6. From the submissions thus made, it is evident that the petitioners did not pursue the remedies available to them and the impugned order has become final. If that be so, respondents cannot be faulted for issuing Ext.P5. Writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs