M/S SHINE INDUSTRIES, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY HOLDER SH. NIPUN GOYAL  Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI & ORS.

W.P.(C) 1107 /2021 Page 1 of 2
$~63.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on : 29th January, 2021

+ W.P.(C) 1107/2021
M/S SHINE INDUSTRIES, THROUGH: ITS ATTORNEY
HOLDER SH. NIPUN GOYAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Akhil Krishan Maggu, Adv.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), INLAND
CONTAINER DEPOT, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI & ORS.
….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing
Counsel with Ms.Suhani Mathur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
: D.N.PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
C.M.No. 3071 /2021 (exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers: – W.P.(C) 1107 /2021
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus order direction thereby directing the respondents to release the suspended
drawback of the petitioner covered under the
shipping bill nos.6633485, 6632874, 6632901,
6632867, 6632866 and 6632883 dated 09.06.2017 ;
(iv) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice .
”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show cause notice
dated 20th December, 2017 issued by the respondents has been stayed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21st December, 2020 in
2021:DHC:350-DB
W.P.(C) 1107 /2021 Page 2 of 2
W.P.(C )No.10837/20 20. He f urther submit s that suffice it would be for the
disposal of this writ petition, if a suitab le direction is issued to the concerned
respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for release of the
suspended drawback covered under the s hipping bills No.6633485,
6632874, 6632901, 6632867, 6632866 and 6632883 dated 9th June, 2017, in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
3. Having heard learned counsel s for the parties and looking to the
averments made in the me mo of this writ petition , it appears that the
allegations against the petitioner are that it had exported certain goods
against the shipping bills, provisionally , which were found to be sub-
standard and highly overvalued for fraudulent availment o f drawback at a
higher rate. Show cause notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner .
4. We accordingly deem it fit to di spose of the present petition with a
direction to t he concerned respondent authorities to decide the claim of the
petitioner with res pect to the suspended drawback covered under the
shipping b ill numbers , ment ioned in the prayer clause of the writ petition, as
extracted above, in accordance with law, Rules, Regulations and
Government Policies applicable to the facts of the case and on t he basis of
the evidence on record, af ter giving adequate opportunity of being heard to
the concerned parties , as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

J YOTI S INGH, J
J ANUARY 29, 2021
‘anb’
2021:DHC:350-DB