1994 (2) TMI 308 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Identification of goods for drawback claim based on absence of marks and numbers, interpretation of Sec. 74 of Customs Act, 1962, exercise of discretionary powers by the Original Authority, establishment of identity of re-exported goods with import documents, payment of duty on imported goods and replacement, duty repayment as drawback.

Analysis:

1. Identification of Goods for Drawback Claim: The appeal was filed against the Lower Authority's rejection of the drawback claim due to the absence of noticeable marks and numbers on the re-exported goods, making it challenging to establish their identity with the import documents presented. The appellant argued that the Supplier's confirmation and the replacement of winding drums should be considered as valid evidence to establish the connection between the exported and imported goods.

2. Interpretation of Sec. 74 of Customs Act, 1962: The appellant contended that the discretionary powers under Sec. 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, were not properly exercised by the Original Authority. They highlighted that the statute allows for the identification of goods to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector, emphasizing the importance of import documents and attendant circumstances in establishing identity.

3. Establishment of Identity of Re-exported Goods: The Commissioner carefully reviewed the import documents, including Shipping Bills, Bills of Entry, relevant invoices, and a declaration from the suppliers confirming the identity of the replacement winding drums. The Commissioner found that all these documents unequivocally indicated the identity of the re-exported goods with those imported, leading to the conclusion that the duty paid on the drums twice necessitated repayment as drawback.

4. Payment of Duty on Imported Goods and Replacement: The Commissioner acknowledged that the appellant had imported a sophisticated auto cone winding machine, and upon installation, it was discovered that the winding drums needed replacement. The appellant re-exported the original drums and re-imported the replacement drums, paying duty on both occasions. The Commissioner deemed the duty paid twice on the same goods as against common law, warranting repayment as drawback.

5. Duty Repayment as Drawback: Based on the evidence presented, including the confirmation from the suppliers and the import-export documentation, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant had successfully established the identity of the re-exported goods with those imported. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the Lower Authority's order and allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the repayment of duty as drawback due to the double payment on the drums.