- (1.) A very short question is involved for consideration and adjudication in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 claims that it exported certain goods and that as a result of such export of the goods, the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of the draw-back customs duty in accordance with and on the basis of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1995 (thereafter referred to as "1995 Rules"). The details of the exports made by the petitioner are contained in various paragraphs of this petition but since I do not propose to go into any question relating to the aspect of the export as such, there is no need to refer to those details. The petitioner's grievance is that despite having exported the goods, and despite being entitled to claim and get the draw-back customs duty under 1995 Rules, the respondents are not acting in accordance with this Rules and because of their failure to discharge their statutory obligation, the petitioner is being deprived of the benefit which it claims it is entitled to receive under the 1995 Rules.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court for a two fold relief, firstly for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directions upon the respondents to act and to proceed in accordance with the 1995 Rules and to process the claim of the petitioner and secondly, for directions to produce the original triplicate copies of the Shipping Bills for verification. The need for the petitioner to ask for the production of the original triplicate copies of the Shipping Bills arose because of a requirement contained in Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules whereby the petitioner was obliged to file every application for drawback duty which, inter alia, was required to be supported with the original triplicate set of the Shipping Bills relating to the export made by the petitioner. It is the admitted case of the parties that the original triplicate set of the Shipping Bills is not in possession of the petitioner and that these documents are in possession of the Director of Revenue Intelligence since these were seized by the officials of this Directorate in the course of search and seizure operations carried out in the premises of the petitioner-company. The petitioner's submission is that in course of such search and seizure operations, the original triplicate set of the documents lying with the petitioner were seized by the officials of DRI but another set of such original documents which were meant for use by the Customs Authorities are lying in the possession of the Customs Authorities. Be that as it may, because of the fact that the petitioner is not possessed of the original triplicate set of the Shipping Bills, it then made prayer that these original documents be produced in the Court by the respondents; hence the need to issue direction upon them.
(3.) On 19th June, 1997 this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to submit applications under 1995 Rules supported by the xerox copies of the Shipping Bills so as to meet the deadline prescribed for submission of such applications.;