IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.843 of 1987 Date of decision: 14.3.2011 M/s Northern India Woollen Mills. -----Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 7.1.1987, Annexure P-19, by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay to the Collector of Customs, Amritsar initiating action to recover custom duty amount of about `46 lacs. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it imported 72 tonnes of wool tops, polyster fibre and as a condition for exemption from custom duty, the petitioner was required to export 70 tonnes of the product. Though the petitioner exported 53 tonnes before the prescribed date i.e. 31.12.1982, the remaining 17 tonnes could not be exported within the said time for which it sought extension of time. The reason for seeking extension was that though the goods were sent to the port, the ship was not available. Without considering the said application, the petitioner received a letter C.W.P. No.843 of 1987 that the it having failed to carry out the export obligations, it was liable to pay custom duty of which exemption was availed. Since the case of the petitioner for extension was bonafide, action of the respondents was arbitrary. 3. On 17.2.1987, following order was passed:- “It is contended that the petitioner imported 72 tonnes of wool tops and polyster fibre on the condition that the end product will be exported. It exported 53 tonnes before 31st December, 1982, and sent 17 tonnes of end product to Bombay for export. However, on account of non-availability of the ship the goods could not be exported and the same are lying at Bombay Port. The respondents are claiming customs duty from the petitioner on the whole quantity. Notice of motion for 17th March, 1987. Service of the respondents be effected in ordinary way and under registered covers. Stay recovery till further orders.” 4. Reply has been filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar stating that since the petitioner failed to discharge the export obligations, further extension having not been granted, the petitioner was liable to pay custom duty and steps have accordingly been initiated for recovery thereof. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. None appears for the respondents. 7. In view of the fact that the writ petition has been pending for the last 24 years and stay is in operation, we do not 2 C.W.P. No.843 of 1987 find it worthwhile to keep on adjourning the matter to await appearance of the respondents. It will be appropriate that the matter is given due consideration by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi and a speaking order is passed dealing with the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it will be at liberty to take its remedies in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Till further order is passed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, stay granted by this Court on 17.2.1987 will continue. After order is passed by the said authority, the matter will abide by the order so passed. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 14, 2011 (JASWANT SINGH) ashwani JUDGE 3