Rep.by its tvlanaging Director Sri Pothumarthr Satyanarayana v. General of Forergn Trade, Hyderabad

lt4/s. Swan Turbine Services Private Limited, Plot No.168, HIRD Phase APllC, Near Kirby, lshnapur X Roads, Pasilmylaram, Patancheruvu, Medak District, Rep.by its tvlanaging Director Sri Pothumarthr Satyanarayana. ...PETITIONER AND Basheerabagh, Hyderabad- 500 004. 'I . Union of lndia, rep-by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, L.B. Stadium Road, 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, lnland 4. The Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, office of Additional Director Container Depot, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad- 500 080. General of Forergn Trade, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N/ANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in passing OIO No.29l2024 Dl.

31 .O3.2024 without considering the Circular No.16/2017- Customs and the information furnished by the petitioner regarding Export Obligation Discharge Certificate pending before the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, impatient and hurried and in violation of Artictes 14, 19-1(g) of Constitution of lndia in consequence thereof declare the Order in Original No.2912024 Dl. 31 .03.2024 issued by the 3'd respondent is not valid and not binding on the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuance to Order in Original No.29 of 2024, Dt. 31 .O3.2024 issued by the 3'd respondent herein pendinc clisposal of the Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. V. R. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.

1&4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP DEPUTY SOLICITOFI GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI DOMINIC FERhIANDES, SENIOR SC F()R CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER ,;w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.1920l OF 2025 ORDER' (per llon'ble Sri Ju:;tice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. S.V.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the Deputy Solicitor General of India lor respondent Nos. I and 4 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, lcarned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the 3'd respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, i.e., the Ordcr-in-Original No.29l2024-ICD, the instant u,rit petition has been filed

The present writ petition has been filed on 01.07.2025 i.e., after a period of around fifteen (15) months from the date the impugned order was passed. The order, at the first instance, is an appealable order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. There is no plausible explanation given by the petitioner as to why 2 %3...f'',, \ \ the Order-in-Original No.2912024 dated 3 1.03.::024 \vas not challengr:d by way ol an appeal within the period c,f limitation as is prescribed under the Act i.e., 60 days and a fur thcr period of 30 days. .\t the same tin-re, there is also no j rstification or explanati, rn rnade available by the petitioner as to v/hv he did not even avarl thc writ remedy that l-re now has resolled to after a pcriod offilteen (15) nronths. The only ground rhar the petirioner was harping on was that the petitioner had been nraking cflorts in getting the Export Obligation Discharge (lertillcate (I-.ODC) from the respondents and which he could finally re:eive only on

03.04.2025 and imrnediately thereafter, he has filed rhe present writ petitir>n.

We are of the considered opinion that for availing the writ remerly, the petitioner ought not to have waited lor.obtaining the EODC. Hc could have straight avvay filed the u,r.it petition assailing the Order-in-Original promptly. It is not th(' case that he was not awarc of the Assessing Officer having passe d rhe Order_ in-Original on 31.03.2024 neither is it a case the petitioner has not 3 obtained the copy of the same or was not aware of the said impugned order.

In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition suffers from delay laches and the writ petition, therefore, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pe nding, if any, shall -t SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ,SYorr,.=* To, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad- 500 004

The Prinicipal Secretary, Utrion of lndia, Finance Department, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner .i, gr_rlgq:, Cbnir"f erciib, L.B. 'staotum 3 The Assistant commissroner of customs and centrar Excise, rnrand . Container Depot, Sanathnagar. HyderabaO_ sbO Obb 4. rhe Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, office of Additional Director _ Qenelql of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad, " ! 9n. CC to SRt. S V. R..SU-BRAHtyAl)lyAM, Advocate tOpUCl 9 9lg 9919 g".prly^qolicitor Generarof rnoiJ'ioCubt /. une CC to SRt. DON/|N|C FERNANDES, SENTOR SC rOn CB|C tOpUCl B. Two CD Copies Roao, BM PVL HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 ORDER WP.No.19201 of 2025 REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /2 ,Z / ,. -..-...:= 14i 11 sEP M t't€ \. tr \-.: - -.-:.