Sawhney Export House Vs. Commissioner of Customs

1. This Tribunal disposed of Appeal No. C/3044/90-A as per Final Order No. 2640/96^A, dated 7-8-1996 observing: "It is now contended on behalf of the appellants, if there was no "order" as contemplated by law, by the Assistant Collector confiscating the goods, levying redemption fine and penalty and demanding duty, the higher duty paid, redemption fine and penalty paid would have to be refunded. This is a matter for the appellants to take up with the Assistant Collector. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of." In compliance with the direction given as above, appellant moved the Assistant Collector for getting the refund. On account of the continued pressure exerted by the appellant to take the refund, it appears that the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi sent communication No. VIII (1) 20/Misc./153/97/Pt./126 dated 4-2-1999 requiring the appellant to furnish the documents mentioned therein and "all other relevant documents in original in this case." According to the appellant, documents called for were furnished and a detailed reply was given to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 15-2-1999. One year and ten months have lapsed therefrom.

The Assistant Commissioner has not cared to pass any order as directed by this Tribunal in its order dated 7-8-1996. Hence, this miscellaneous application for compelling the Assistant Commissioner to comply with the direction given by this Tribunal.

2. In the application dated 15-12-2000, it's further alleged that the appellant received the letter from the Assistant Commissioner on 4-2-1999 asking to submit refund application along with the documents.

All the documents were stated to have been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner and renders were sent on 1-4-1999, 5-3-1999 and 29-4-1999.

It is the case of the appellant that they are entitled to refund of excess duty charged with 18% interest from 19-6-1989 till disbursement as well as demurrage. The total amount claimed by way of refund comes to Rs. 1,37,502.00.

3. We heard the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative.

The Departmental Representative took up the stand that the party was not making available all the relevant documents to enable the Assistant Commissioner to pass final order in compliance with [he direction given by this Tribunal. We are not in a position to accept this explanation of the learned Departmental Representative, because the Assistant Commissioner has till date not stated any reason explaining his inability to pass final order. The explanation now given by the Departmental Representative is the outcome of his own imagination. Be that as it may, we direct the Assistant Commissioner to pass final order in terms of the directions given by this Tribunal in its final order dated 7-8-1996 within a period of one month from today. In case the final order is not passed as stated above, the Assistant Commissioner should file an affidavit before this Tribunal giving reason for not taking further action for violating the orders of this Tribunal. A copy of this order will be given to the appellant for service on the Asstt. Commissioner. Another copy will be given to the Departmental Representative for enabling him to Sake up follow up action. To come up on 6-2-2001.