2001 (10) TMI 544 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellants challenging DEPB rate decision.
2. Validity of DEPB rate claim.
3. Interpretation of policy circular and letters.
4. Compliance with EXIM policy requirements.
5. Legal entitlement to DEPB rate.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal affirming the DEPB rate decision by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The appellants claimed DEPB at 17% for exporting Acrylic Shawls under DEPB Serial No. 40 of Product Group 89 but were allowed only 9%. The dispute arose due to a change in DEPB rates from 17% to 9% effective from 1st April, 2000.

2. The appellants argued that as they presented the goods for examination on 31st March, 2000, they should be entitled to the higher DEPB rate applicable until that date. They relied on Policy Circular No. 19 (RE-98) 1998-2002 and various letters to support their claim. However, the Respondent contended that the goods were not actually presented for examination on 31st March, 2000, as required by the policy.

3. The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the goods were partially received on 29th March, 2000, and the balance on 31st March, 2000. The DEPB rates changed on 1st April, 2000. The Tribunal held that the mere arrival of goods in the CONCOR Shed on 31st March, 2000, without necessary documentation and permission for clubbing of shipping bills, did not constitute presenting the goods for examination. The letters cited did not support the appellants' claim.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with EXIM policy requirements was crucial. The appellants failed to obtain permission for clubbing of shipping bills before 31st March, 2000, and the goods were not legally available for examination until after the DEPB rate change. Therefore, the claim for the higher DEPB rate was not valid.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, stating that the appellants were rightly allowed DEPB at 9% from 1st April, 2000, as they did not fulfill the conditions for claiming the higher rate. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was upheld, finding no legal infirmity in the decision.