2009 (11) TMI 744 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of drawback claim on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
2. Applicability of Customs Act versus SEZ Act in the context of drawback claim.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of SEZ Act and SEZ Rules regarding drawback entitlement.
4. Compliance with Circular No. 43/2007-Cus. for claiming drawback in SEZ units.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's drawback claim was rejected due to being time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The lower authority applied the term "duty" under Section 27(2) to include "drawback," leading to the conclusion that the time limit under Section 27 applies to duty drawback as well. However, the Drawback Rules 1995 set specific time limits for filing drawback claims, which would be undermined if Section 27 were to govern drawback claims. Thus, the rejection based on Section 27 was deemed unsustainable.

2. The judgment emphasized that the Customs Act and SEZ Act have distinct provisions for drawback claims. While the Customs Act provides for drawback on exported goods, the SEZ Act entitles developers and entrepreneurs to drawback on goods brought from DTA into an SEZ. The SEZ Rules specify that the triplicate copy of the assessed Bill of Export serves as the drawback claim, to be processed within the SEZ jurisdiction. The Circular No. 43/2007-Cus. further clarifies the process of claiming drawback in SEZ units.

3. The SEZ Act and SEZ Rules clearly outline the entitlement to drawback for goods procured from DTA into SEZ. The SEZ unit or developer can claim drawback, and a disclaimer certificate issued by the unit must be supported by a certificate from the specified officer in the SEZ to prevent double claiming of drawback on the same goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to these provisions for claiming drawback in SEZ units.

4. The Circular No. 43/2007-Cus. mandates that the disclaimer certificate issued by the SEZ unit or developer must be supported by a certificate from the specified officer in the SEZ confirming that drawback has not been claimed on the goods by the unit or developer. This requirement ensures the proper verification and prevention of duplicate claims for drawback. The judgment underscored the significance of complying with this circular for claiming drawback in SEZ units.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned order rejecting the drawback claim, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. It was clarified that the appellant is eligible for drawback, subject to fulfilling the condition specified in Rule 30(8) of the SEZ Rules, which mandates payments for the supply to be made from the foreign currency account of the unit.