DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The challenge in the writ petition is directed towards refusal to grant drawback claim of Rs.36,10,796/- in respect of a shipping bill bearing no. 5318141 dated July 12, 2006. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner had exported prime mild steel concast billets under two separate shipping bills both dated July 12, 2006 with a due drawback claim of Rs.36,10,796/- and Rs.19,98,616/-. The shipping bills were filed electronically. Export order was issued on July 19, 2006. The same was also taken electronically. The Electronic Data Interchange System (EDI System) was introduced for the first time at Kolkata Customs during that relevant point of time. He refers to Rule 13(5) of the Drawback Rules 1995 and submits that, by virtue of the notification dated July 13, 2006, the electronic shipping bill itself will be treated as a claim for drawback. Consequently, the shipping bill dated July 12, 2006 bearing no. 5318141 filed by the petitioner in the EDI System will be treated as a drawback claim. He submits that, the drawback claim in respect of other shipping bill bearing no. 5118142 of the same date was allowed and credited in the account of the petitioner no. 1. However, the drawback claim in respect of the shipping bill no. 5318141 was not credited. The petitioner had made representations dated April 9, 2010, June 7, 2010 and September 3, 2010 before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback department. However, the petitioner was informed that, the Customs authorities had raised queries in the EDI System in respect of the shipping bill no. 5318141 for the submission of ARE-1 and Bank Realization Certificate. The petitioner was not aware of such queries as the petitioner did not have access to the EDI System at that point of time. Upon coming to know of such fact, the petitioner had filed a supplementary claim under cover of a letter dated December 6, 2010. The authorities had afforded the petitioner a hearing in respect of such supplementary claim. However, by the Order dated December 30, 2011 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback department rejected the same on account of the same being barred by time and as the application was improper. The petitioner has appealed therefrom under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was allowed by the Order dated February 6, 2012. The drawback claim was directed to be considered on merits. The revenue had preferred a revision therefrom under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. Such revision was allowed by the Order dated June 14, 2013 disallowing the claim for duty drawback and upholding the order in original.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not aware of the queries raised in the EDI System as the petitioner did not have access thereto. Consequently, the queries went unattended. The petitioner having received one claim on duty drawback out of the two shipping bills of the same date, it did not have any reason to suspect that, the other duty drawback would not be granted. However, immediately upon the petitioner becoming aware of the problem it had taken corrective measures, and had lodged a supplementary claim. Consequently, the petitioner should be allowed to receive the benefits of the duty drawback which is otherwise receivable.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for herein. The duty of drawback was rejected on EDI System due to the petitioner failing to give answer to the queries raised therein. The rejection of the claim by the EDI System is not under challenge in the present writ petition. The so-called supplementary claim lodged by the petitioner is barred by the laws of limitation. Such supplementary claim cannot, therefore, be adjudicated upon. The petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the duty drawback as claimed.;