9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether drawback of duty is available to M/s. Handloom Only in respect of goods exported by them. Analysis: The appeal filed by M/s. Handloom Only raised the issue of the availability of drawback of duty for goods exported by them. The Customs Department alleged that the garments were overvalued and no drawback claim was admissible. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty, stating that no drawback was admissible as the market value of the goods was less than the claimed drawback amount. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the export of the consignment after drawing samples and remanded the matter for a fresh valuation based on objective criteria. The Commissioner, in the subsequent order, found through market enquiries that the market value of the goods exceeded the drawback claimed, indicating that drawback was available to the exporters. The Commissioner's order denying drawback was deemed incorrect as the market value was proven to be higher than the claimed drawback amount. The advocate for M/s. Handloom Only argued that the Commissioner's finding that the aspect of drawback was not covered by the remand order was inaccurate. The Tribunal's previous order permitted export pending reevaluation of the goods' valuation and drawback claim. The advocate also highlighted that an undertaking not to claim drawback due to pending market enquiry did not preclude the exporters from claiming drawback later. The Department's approval of export under a drawback shipping bill contradicted any claims that the goods were not shipped under drawback. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that the validity of an order must be judged based on the reasons given in the order itself. On the other hand, the Department's representative requested a remand to the Commissioner to determine the admissibility of the drawback claims. The charges against the appellants were related to alleged overvaluation for excess drawback claims. The Department's denial of drawback was based on the appellants' undertaking not to claim it, without assessing the admissibility on merit. The Department sought a remand for a comprehensive evaluation of the drawback claim. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the earlier findings by the Commissioner, which denied drawback, were based on incorrect assumptions about the market value of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the exporters should not be deprived of the drawback claim solely based on the earlier undertaking not to claim it. The Tribunal also noted that the previous remand order did address the drawback claim, and subsequent market enquiries confirmed that the market value exceeded the claimed drawback amount. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, affirming that drawback of duty was available to the appellants as per the law, and could not be denied based on incorrect valuation assumptions.
|
