AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The short question for consideration is: should this Court intervene with the Order-in-Original dated 11.02.2026 [Annexure-D] by the third respondent because the petitioner’s response has not been considered? This question arises because the third respondent, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 75[1] of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 18 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017, has observed thus:
“The exporter did not file any reply to the notice. However, in order to follow the principles of natural justice, three opportunities of hearing in person were granted on 22-08-2025, 08-09-2025 and 10-09-2025. The exporter has not attended the hearing on any of the dates offered.”
Sri. G.B. Eswarappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the third respondent’s observation is despite the petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice on 02.09.2025 and that the petitioner’s response is also acknowledged on 03.09.2025. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is issued with a Detention Notice dated 02.09.2026 [Annexure - E] though the third respondent has confirmed that the petitioner is entitled to a drawback [a refund] especially with the petitioner making a certain payment because remittance for a transaction covered under the Notice was not received as of the relevant date.
Sri Aravind V. Chavan, a learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits that the third respondent's decision is only to confirm the Show Cause Notice and any observation to the contrary in the operative portion is only a typographical error and therefore no exception can be taken with the Detention Notice or any further action based on that. However, the learned Standing Counsel cannot dispute that the petitioner's response dated 02.09.2025 has not been considered by the third respondent. If the petitioner, when served with the Show Cause Notice, has responded in writing and that is acknowledged, the third respondent’s failure to consider the same observing that the petitioner has filed no response only indicates a denial of opportunity. As such, this Court must intervene answering the question in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the following.
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part quashing the impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.02.2026 [Annexure - D] and the Detention Notice dated 02.09.2026 [Annexure - E] restoring the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order and any detailed explanation, including any particulars of any payments that are made because remittances are not received for any transactions that are covered under the proceedings.
[B] The petitioner shall, without further notice, file a certified copy of this order and further response with the third respondent on 02.11.2026.
[C] It is needless to observe that with this intervention there cannot be any coercive measures against, or an impediment for, the petitioner until there is a final order.