2010 (5) TMI 791 - CGOVT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the rejection of drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, the dispute over the correct amount of drawback claimed by the exporter, and the interpretation of Notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996 regarding re-imported goods and customs duties.

Rejection of Drawback Claim under Section 74:
The exporter, after re-exporting a consignment of Dye intermediate, claimed drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The initial drawback claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, leading to a series of appeals and revisions. The Revisionary Authority sanctioned a drawback amount, but the exporter contested it, claiming a higher amount. The exporter's subsequent appeals were rejected on grounds of delay and lack of merit. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in the process.

Dispute Over Correct Drawback Amount:
The exporter contested the drawback amount paid to them, claiming they were entitled to a higher sum and requested the differential amount along with interest. Despite departmental communication affirming the correctness of the paid amount, the exporter persisted in their claim. The appellate authority rejected the exporter's appeal on grounds of delay, leading to a revision application and subsequent remand for a decision on merits.

Interpretation of Notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996:
The Central Government, after careful consideration, analyzed the re-importation of goods by the exporter under Notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996. The exporter claimed benefits under this notification and paid only a part of the Customs duty. The dispute arose regarding the entitlement to a recovered drawback amount, with the exporter asserting it as Customs Duties eligible for fresh drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Government's interpretation aligned with the statute and relevant clarifications, concluding that the exporter was entitled to the claimed drawback amount based on the plain reading of the statute and circulars.