2010 (2) TMI 835 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application - Duty drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act - re-export of goods - adjudicating authority after examining all the documents held that re-export goods are not identifiable as the imported goods and finally rejected the impugned Drawback claim - Held that - goods being usable parts/attachments of the main equipment which were never specifically and separately mentioned in detail at the time of claimed import any benefit of doubt cannot be extended. The relevant statute stipulates a mandatory condition of goods capable of being easily identifiable to the satisfaction of proper officer. This statutory condition remains as not fulfilled in this case. Any subsequent correspondence/fax message etc. cannot override the initial and main-statutory requirements which is that the specifications/detailed markings on the import Bill of Entry/Invoice should be exactly the same with those in shipping bills/export documents viz-a-viz actual (physical state of the) goods It is not to be applied to those conditions/requirement which otherwise leads to specific consequences. The Customs authorities being creatures of Customs Act cannot ignore the statute thereof revision application is thus rejected being devoid of merits.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Duty drawback claim rejection based on identification of re-exported goods.
2. Consideration of evidence and submissions by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
3. Legal justifications for rejecting the revision application.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involves a duty drawback claim rejection by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs based on the identification of re-exported goods. The applicant, a non-commercial organization, filed a claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the re-export of Pump and Pump Controller items. However, the adjudicating authority found that the re-exported goods were not identifiable as the imported goods, leading to the rejection of the drawback claim. The applicant, aggrieved by this decision, appealed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who upheld the original decision. The applicant contended that the identification of goods was established to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, citing supporting documents such as a supplier's fax letter. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was criticized for not considering the material evidence submitted by the applicant and for making observations without documentary evidence.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was accused of not addressing the submissions and evidence presented by the applicant adequately. The applicant highlighted that the Assistant Commissioner had accepted the supplier's fax letter as evidence of the goods' identity, which was not reflected in the appellate authority's findings. The applicant also emphasized that the absence of any defacement or remarks on the Shipping Bill supported their claim for the drawback. The applicant relied on various case laws to support their argument that collateral evidence could establish the identity of goods, emphasizing the legality and veracity of their claim.

3. The Government, upon reviewing the case records and submissions, concluded that the re-exported goods were not identifiable with the imported goods as claimed by the applicant. The Government noted that the statutory requirement under Section 74(1)(a) of the Customs Act mandated goods to be identifiable to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at the time of export. Despite the applicant's contentions and supplementary documents, the Government found no evidence to suggest proper identification of the goods. The Government emphasized that subsequent correspondence or fax messages could not override the initial statutory requirements, and the case laws cited by the applicant did not apply to the specific scenario of integral parts or usable attachments of main imported goods.

In light of the above analysis, the Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the original order, rejecting the revision application for being devoid of merits. The legal justifications provided by the Government focused on the statutory requirements for identifying goods for duty drawback claims and emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural and technical requirements as per the Customs Act and relevant case laws.