2011 (2) TMI 1053 - AT - Customs

DEPB claim rejected on verification for non-fulfillment of the condition - Held that - As in Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal are in respect of 2 Shipping Bills No. 5274398 and 5286278 in respect of which the total amount due is Rs. 51,694. But the department has rejected their entire claim of other 4 Shipping Bills which were not part of the show-cause notice. In respect of 4 Shipping Bills not covered by the show-cause notice, the Asstt.Commission is free to issue fresh show-cause notice and decide the case as per law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the exporter.

Summary

Issues:
1. Verification of DEPB License for exported machined parts
2. Rejection of verification request by Customs Department
3. Compliance with DEPB rate schedule requirements
4. Rejection of claim for non-fulfillment of conditions
5. Rejection of claim for additional Shipping Bills not covered by show-cause notice

Analysis:

1. The case involves the appellant exporting machined parts with components predominantly of iron under a DEPB License. The appellant requested verification of the DEPB License, which was rejected by the Customs Department, leading to an Order-in-Original and subsequent confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that they provided the necessary information for each Shipping Bill and submitted a Customs attested invoice showing compliance. However, the authorities contended that the appellant failed to declare the required details in the Shipping Bills as per general instruction No.11 of the DEPB rate schedule.

3. The DEPB rate schedule mandates exporters to declare specific details in the Shipping Bills, including the description of composite products, constituent items attracting DEPB rates, and their respective details. The failure to fulfill these requirements led to the rejection of the appellant's claim for DEPB verification.

4. Upon review of the case records, it was found that the appellant did not mention crucial details in the Shipping Bills as required by the DEPB rate schedule. This non-compliance justified the rejection of the verification claim by the department, as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the rejection of claims for additional Shipping Bills not covered by the show-cause notice. The Tribunal clarified that the department could issue a fresh show-cause notice for the remaining Shipping Bills and decide the matter accordingly, ensuring a fair opportunity for the exporter to present their case.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the decision to uphold the rejection of the DEPB verification claim due to non-compliance with the DEPB rate schedule requirements. The appellant was advised that for the Shipping Bills not addressed in the initial proceedings, a fresh show-cause notice could be issued for further review and resolution.