Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesBombay High Court Quashes Order Imposing Harsh Penalty For Alleged Wrongful Availment...

Bombay High Court Quashes Order Imposing Harsh Penalty For Alleged Wrongful Availment Of Duty Drawback By Exporter

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Bombay High Court has quashed the order imposing harsh penalty for alleged wrongful availment of duty drawback by exporter and directed denovo consideration.

The Bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra S. Jain observed that the ground raised in the petitions are that the impugned order dated 30th November 2023 is an unreasoned order. 

The Petitioner/exporter has challenged the Order passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export) imposing severe and harsh penalty of Rs.4,00,00,000 under Section 114(i) and 114AA under Customs Act, 1962 on the Petitioner for an alleged offence of wrongful availment of Duty Drawback amounting to Rs.4,65,946 by the Exporter.

The Respondent/departmnet has failed to provide any method and reasoning whatsoever to arrive at the said quantum in the Impugned Order. Therefore, applying the aforesaid principles, the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order not only relies on irrelevant aspects but also lacks proper rational behind the findings made therein. 

Dr. Kantawala, Advocate for Petitioner submitted that the Respondent acted in an unreasonable manner and arbitrarily exercised his power without producing an iota of evidence to substantiate its finding in the impugned order. There is no finding by the Authority that Exports have not taken place or foreign remittance has not been received in India by the Exporter. 

Dr. Kantawala, Advocate for Petitioner submitted that even for a moment the court direct petitioners to exhaust the alternate remedy of filing an appeal, since the order is an unreasoned order, petitioners will not even know on what grounds their submissions were rejected.

Mr. Kantharia, Advocate for the Respondent tried his best to justify the order, in the end he had to throw in the towel because the impugned order spoke for itself. 

The court directed for denovo consideration of the matter with fresh personal hearings to be given to the Petitioners and the order to be passed by 30.11.2024. 

Case Details

Case Title:  Kailas Dhondibhau Argade V/s. The Union of India & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No.3429 Of 2024

Date: 09/09/2024

Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w Mr. Samsher Garud, Mr. Radheshyam Sharma, Ms.Mubasshira Qureshi and Ms. Dhwani Parekh i/b Jayakar & Partners 

Counsel For Respondent: Vijay Kantharia

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...

Adjudicating Authority Ignored Remand Directions, Reissued ‘Copy-Paste’ Order: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand 

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

RP Extinguishing Pre-CIRP MVAT Dues Bars Tax Recovery: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Rs. 20.02 Lakh Pre-Deposit

The Bombay High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by...

More like this

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...

Adjudicating Authority Ignored Remand Directions, Reissued ‘Copy-Paste’ Order: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand 

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

RP Extinguishing Pre-CIRP MVAT Dues Bars Tax Recovery: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Rs. 20.02 Lakh Pre-Deposit

The Bombay High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by...