JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. One M/s. Zapchast Exports appear to have imported certain stock of spare parts of Russian tractors in India. Such stock was stored in a bonded warehouse for meeting “on the shelf requirements” of customers against customers own import license as per provisions of the Import Trade Control Act. The goods were alleged to have been offered to the petitioner at a discount to the extent of 80% of the C.I.F. Value of the importers. Petitioner purchased the goods against Invoice No. 190 and 211 and paid customs duty of Rs. 20,818.63 paise against the same. The goods were purchased by the petitioner on 26.9.1978. In or about 1980-1981, the petitioner appears to have filed application for refund of excess customs duty alleged to have been recovered by the respondent. These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs was dismissed by the Collector of Customs and the revision petition filed against the order of Collector of Customs was dismissed on 14.1.1983 by the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (in short referred to as CEGAT).
2. It appears that besides the above consignments (hereinafter referred to as the First Consignment) the petitioner had also purchased certain others goods imported by the same importer allegedly at a discounted price. The Application for refund of the customs duty in respect of these goods (hereinafter referred to as the Second Consignment) were dismissed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs on the ground of the application being barred by time. Appeal filed against the above order before the Collector of Customs was also dismissed, however, the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) by its order dated 7.3.1986 held the application for refund to be within time and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs for reassessment after valuing the goods afresh. On matter being remanded, the Assistant Collector of Customs in March, 1989 after considering the entire material on record directed refund of excess customs duty in respect of the Second Consignment.
3. After the aforesaid order was passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal remanding the matter to the Asstt. Collector of Customs for reassessment after revaluing the goods of the Second Consignment, the petitioner again filed an application before the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for re-hearing the matter about refund of excess customs duty on the goods covered by the first consignment and for passing similar orders as were passed in respect of the goods in the Second Consignment. This application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.1.1987. After dismissal of his application, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in February, 1990 after the Assistant Collector of Customs had, in March, 1989, directed the refund of the excess duty paid by the petitioner in respect of the Second Consignment.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the goods in respect of the First Consignment as well as the Second Consignment were similar, the respondents ought to have followed the order passed by Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for the goods of the Second Consignment in respect of first consignment as well and ought to have directed refund of the excess customs duty alleged to have been paid by the petitioner for that consignment. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. The order rejecting the Revision of the petitioner was passed by CEGAT in 1983. The present writ petition has been filed in 1990 i.e. after almost 7 years of the dismissal of the Revision Petition of the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the goods in respect of the Second Consignment were similar to the goods of the First Consignment. The goods in respect of the First Consignment having already been removed by the petitioner and disposed of as early as in 1978 they were not available with the respondents for comparison. Moreover it a highly disputed question of fact as to whether or not the goods of both the consignments were similar. These questions cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner also cannot make a grievance about recovery of the alleged excess customs duty from them. In case the petitioners were not satisfied with the order of the CEGAT passed in January, 1983 they had a remedy to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. That having not been done, this Court after almost 8 years of the passing of the said order will not take cognisance of the same so as to re-open the matter settled in 1983. The petition, in my opinion, has no merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.