2010 (8) TMI 570 - AT - Customs

Drawback - Supplementary claims - Limitation - The appellants submitted that they have filed the shipping bills under Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules 1995 and as per Rule 13 Duty Drawback is to be sanctioned immediately when the same is put on EDI data - Instead of challenging the said assessment held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. the appellants chose to file supplementary claim in form Annexure-III under Rule 15 and the Commissioner has dealt with that supplementary claim holding that as per Rule 15 of the said Rules the claim is barred by limitation - The appellant has filed supplementary claim and the Commissioner has rejected their supplementary claim under Rule 15 - Hence do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the claim as time-barred

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of duty drawback of supplementary claims by the Commissioner of Customs under Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules, 1995.
- Applicability of Rule 15 to the case.
- Whether the duty drawback claim was sanctioned to the exporter.

Analysis:

The appellant, an exporter, filed an appeal against the denial of duty drawback of their supplementary claims by the Commissioner of Customs, citing that the claims were barred by limitation under Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules, 1995. The appellants regularly filed shipping bills along with invoices for export consignments, and after processing the bills into EDI data, duty drawback claims were sanctioned. However, during an audit, it was discovered that there were short/part payments in some claims, leading the appellants to file supplementary claims under Rule 15. The Commissioner rejected these supplementary claims as time-barred, requiring claims to be filed within three months. The appellant contested this rejection, arguing that there was no time limit under Rule 13 for filing supplementary claims and that they were claiming the differential drawback, not filing a supplementary claim. The main issue revolved around whether the duty drawback claim was sanctioned and if Rule 15 applied to the case.

Upon examination, it was determined that Rule 13 of the Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 governs the manner and time for claiming drawback on exported goods. The rule specifies that when a shipping bill is generated in the EDI system, the concerned officer should allow the drawback claim. If there are document deficiencies, a deficiency memo should be issued within 10 days. The appellant's contention that there was no provision in Rule 13 for filing supplementary claims was acknowledged. However, it was noted that the concerned officer had processed and sanctioned the duty drawback claim as per Rule 13. Instead of challenging this assessment, the appellants chose to file supplementary claims under Rule 15. Citing precedents, the judgment highlighted that the appellants could have challenged the initial assessment but opted for supplementary claims. The Commissioner's rejection of the supplementary claims as time-barred under Rule 15 was upheld, as the appellant's actions did not align with the provisions of the rules.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected, affirming the Commissioner's decision regarding the time-barred supplementary claims under Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules, 1995.