2013 (10) TMI 1315 - CGOVT - Customs

Rejection of request of reconstruction of the file - applicant have not furnished EP copy and original exporter copy of the shipping bill and furnished only the photocopy of the shipping bill which is not the valid document to claim drawback - applicant applied for reconstruction of file on the ground that on the date of customs clearance EDI system was not working therefore the goods were manually cleared - Held that - appellate authority has observed that the EDI system was not functional on 6-6-2009 i.e. on the date of filing of Shipping Bill and the triplicate copy of impugned Shipping Bill was retained by the customs. - observation of appellate authority has not been disputed by the department by any documentary evidence hence the observation of appellate authority that original triplicate copy of Shipping Bill was retained by the customs required to be upheld. - appellate authority has mentioned that the applicant deposited their EP copy of SB with DGFT to claim the benefit of Focus Product Scheme and the proof of submission of EP copy with the DGFT was also submitted for reconstruction of file. The Para 2.23 of Handbook of Procedures of DGFT it is stipulated that whenever original documents have been submitted to different nominated agency/RA applicant can furnish photocopy of documents duly certified by him in lieu of original. Therefore Government notes that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in allowing appeal of respondent. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Reconstruction of file for drawback claim based on missing shipping bill copies.

Detailed Analysis:
The revision application was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs against the Order-in-Appeal regarding the rejection of a drawback claim by M/s. M.M. Exports (India). The applicant exported goods to the UK through ICD Dadri, and due to the non-functional EDI system during customs clearance, the triplicate copy of the shipping bill was not provided, hindering the drawback claim process. The rejection was based on the lack of EP copy and original exporter copy of the shipping bill, as only a photocopy was furnished, deemed invalid for claiming drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondent had submitted all documents except the original shipping bill copies for file reconstruction. The respondent provided proof of submitting the EP copy to DGFT and a certified copy to Customs, justifying the reconstruction request.

The revision application argued that the photocopy of shipping bills was insufficient for drawback sanction, contrary to the Drawback Rules and Public Notice issued by the Chennai Commissionerate. The Public Notice detailed the required documents for reconstruction, including the exporter copy/EP copy of shipping bills, which were not submitted by the party in this case. The government noted the strict construction of exemptions and exceptions, citing a relevant case law, emphasizing compliance with conditions for benefits.

During the personal hearing, the department reiterated its grounds for revision, while the respondent defended the legality of the order-in-appeal. The government reviewed the case records and found that the EDI system was non-functional during customs clearance, leading to the absence of the triplicate shipping bill copy. The appellate authority's observation supported the respondent's submission of documents for reconstruction, highlighting the submission of the EP copy to DGFT as per Handbook of Procedures guidelines. The government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, noting no error in allowing the respondent's appeal.

Conclusively, the government rejected the revision application, finding no merit in challenging the order-in-appeal and upheld the decision in favor of the respondent.