Seedworks International Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs

Held

The High Court, considering that the amendment application had been pending since June 26, 2023, decided to dispose of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the amendment application/representation dated June 26, 2023, in accordance with the law, at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted that protest letters were filed by the petitioner on September 30, 2022, and February 10, 2023, followed by the amendment petition under Section 149 or Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking amendments to their Shipping Bills. The specific issues regarding the refund amount and interest were not decided on merits as the petitioner confined their prayer to the disposal of the amendment application.

Facts

Seedworks International Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court seeking several reliefs against the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and other revenue authorities. These reliefs included directing the respondent to allow and process an amendment application dated June 26, 2023, in a time-bound manner, granting a refund of Rs. 2,02,82,048.42 for excess Basic Customs Duty (BCD) paid, and awarding appropriate interest on this amount. The petitioner also sought a personal hearing. The petitioner's counsel later submitted that the purpose of the writ petition would be served if the court directed the respondent to dispose of the amendment application filed on June 26, 2023, which had been pending for over three years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 1 to allow and process the amendment application dated June 26, 2023, filed by the petitioner in a time-bound manner, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,02,82,048.42 pertaining to excess BCD paid, along with appropriate interest, as per the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their amendment application, filed on June 26, 2023, had been pending for over three years without being allowed or rejected. They sought a direction for its timely disposal. They later confined their relief to a direction for the disposal of this application. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through their Senior Standing Counsel, argued that the amendment application was not maintainable at the threshold for multiple reasons. They contended that the application was filed to take advantage of the limitation period, as the petitioner might subsequently approach the Appellate Authority under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, after the limitation period had already lapsed. They also submitted that the application was more in the nature of a representation than a formal amendment petition.