2013 (6) TMI 681 - CGOVT - Customs

Denial of duty drawback claim - Bar of limitation - no formal communication was sent to exporter - Held that - Public notice is a valid communication asking the exporter to submit replies through EDI service centre to pending queries within 15 days failing which the pending drawback claim will be liable for rejection. This public notice did not prescribe any new procedure so there is no question of its prospective applicability. Despite this communication, applicant failed to reply the queries raised by Appraiser and the claim was thus rightly rejected. The claim status as scrolled out to zero claim can be viewed by the exporter in this EDI system service centre. So, he cannot claim that no communication was sent to him. - The drawback claim in respect of shipping bill No. 5318142, dated 12-7-2006 was paid to exporter vide scroll No. 1830/2006. So the exporter became aware of sanction of one claim in 2006 itself. Despite this he did not care to check the status of other claim. The shipping bill was filed electronically on EDI system so he was required to check the status of shipping bill electronically only. - supplementary claim filed on 9-4-2010/6-12-2010 after a delay of more than 17 months was clearly time-barred in terms of Rule 15 of Drawback Rules and Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in treating it as filed in time - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred supplementary drawback claim.
2. Communication of EDI queries.
3. Applicability of Public Notice No. 02/2009.
4. Condonation of delay under Rule 17.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Time-barred Supplementary Drawback Claim:
The primary issue revolves around the time-barred supplementary drawback claim. The respondents exported 6342.29 M.T. of prime mild steel concast billets under a claim of drawback amounting to Rs. 36,10,796/-. The original drawback claim was scrolled out with zero drawback on 25-3-2009. The respondents filed a supplementary claim on 9-4-2010, which was later completed on 6-12-2010. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim as time-barred under Rule 15 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties, and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, which mandates that a supplementary claim must be filed within three months from the date of payment or settlement of the original drawback claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, but the revision application by the department contested this decision, arguing that the claim was filed beyond the permissible period, making it time-barred.

2. Communication of EDI Queries:
The respondents argued that the deficiencies or queries raised by the Customs authorities were never communicated to them in writing, as mandated by Rule 13(3)(a). The department, however, contended that in the EDI system, queries are communicated electronically, and it is the responsibility of the exporter to keep track of their shipping bills. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that no formal communication was sent to the exporter, but the department argued that the EDI system's electronic communication is valid and formal.

3. Applicability of Public Notice No. 02/2009:
The respondents argued that Public Notice No. 02/2009, dated 9-1-2009, which mandates replies to EDI queries within 15 days, should not apply to exports made in 2006. The department, however, maintained that the public notice did not prescribe any new procedure and was a valid communication asking exporters to submit replies to pending queries. The government observed that the public notice is applicable and that the respondents failed to reply to the queries raised by the Appraiser, leading to the rightful rejection of the claim.

4. Condonation of Delay under Rule 17:
The respondents requested the Central Government to condone the delay in filing the supplementary claim under Rule 17 of the Drawback Rules. The government observed that the respondents were required to seek such condonation from the designated proper authority in the Central Government. Since no such approval was produced, no relief could be granted by the revisionary authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
The government concluded that the supplementary claim filed after a delay of more than 17 months was clearly time-barred under Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the claim as filed in time. Consequently, the impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the impugned order-in-original was restored. The revision application by the department succeeded.