AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.A. Desai, J.—This Petition is directed against the recovery certificate dated 30th July, 1984 issued by the Customs Authorities. The main ground of challenge is that the export was carried within the period extended by the authorities under bond and as such, issuing of such certificate is wholly without any justification. For adjudication of question as involved, the facts relevant are thus :
The Petitioner is a manufacturer of Gas Mantles. For the purposes they are required certain chemicals to be imported. On 22nd September, 1981, the exemption certificate was granted. The Petitioner executed a bond for the compliance of the condition necessary for availing benefit of exemption. One of the stipulations was that total export of Rs. 69,61,000 to be made within a period of six months.
Undisputedly, as the Petitioner could not fulfil the condition as per terms of the bond, period was extended up to 30.9.1982. Even then, the Petitioner failed to comply and could not complete the export as quantified.
It is reported to us, that some time in 17th April, 1984, they have exported the remaining quantity of goods. Because of the default on the part of the Petitioner in fulfilling the condition of the bond, the Department issued impugned recovery certificate, 30.7.1984 asking them to reimburse the amount of duty which was exempted by order dated 22.9.1981.
It is the case of the Petitioner that he made a representation on 14th August, 1985 to the Chief Controller, New Delhi, for grant of extension. It is mentioned therein that the Local authorities at Bombay, in July, 1985, twice refused the extension. The case of the Petitioner is that subsequently the authorities at Delhi in August, 1986 made an endorsement granting extension up to 17.4.1984. We have not been explained as to how in August, 1986, there could be extension with a retrospective effect up to 17.4.1984. We attempted to seek the explanation from the Counsel appearing for the Department. However, he expressed his inability. This peculiar aspect has become a mystery before us, how, on a representation dated 14th August, 1985, which the Petitioner made to the Chief Controller at Delhi, the said extension was granted up to 17.4.1984. The department has not disclosed a pertinent fact that how the export obligation as required under the bond was completed in April, 1984. They have also not disclosed that how the impugned recovery certificate was issued way back on 30.7.1984. Despite repeated query, the Petitioner has not disclosed how the endorsement granting extension was obtained in 1986 when the export was completed and recovery certificate was already issued.
In view of this peculiar circumstances, we are not inclined to grant indulgence in favour of the Petitioner by exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.
Rule discharged.