IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31671 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. LEOTEX, MAYITHARA.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA- 688 539, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. RISHI. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNA KUMAR SRI.TITTO THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (DRAWBACK), CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SC; CBE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JV WPC NO: 31671/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO: 06/2003 - CUS DTD 28.01.2003 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO: 40/2003 - CUS DTD 12.05.2003 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO: 4/2004 - CUS DTD 16.01.2004. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 12 OF THE DRAW BACK RULES DTD 03.11.2006 WITH DETAILS OF SHIPPING BILLS. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 12.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2011 IN W.P.(C) 5549/2007 THIS HONOURABLE COURT P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31671 of 2011 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is an exporter of coir products. He claimed the benefits under the Duty Drawback Scheme. His claim was initially rejected by the fourth respondent and at that stage the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.5549/2007. This Court, by Ext.P6 judgment, disposed of the writ petition, holding that the petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered in the light of Rule 12 of the Drawback Rules. On that basis, this Court directed the fourth respondent to place the claim of the petitioner before the third respondent and the third respondent was directed to consider the matter in the light of the said Rules. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the third respondent and the third respondent rejected the petitioner's claim by Ext.P4. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.31671/2011 : 2 : 2. As evident from the order itself, this is an order which is appealable to the Tribunal. However, counsel for the petitioner contended that his right for the benefit claimed have crystalised in view of the findings in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be relegated to the appellate remedy. Although I have gone through the judgment, I am not in a position to find any direction in Ext.P5 finding that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed. On the other hand, this Court only held that the petitioner is entitled to have his claim for drawback considered in the light of the proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Duty Drawback Rules. In that view, this contention of the petitioner is not tenable. In such circumstances, it is for the petitioner to pursue his appellate remedy and with that liberty, this writ petition is disposed of . Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28/11