2010 (11) TMI 823 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application - drawback claim under Section 74 of Customs Act - Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback) rejected claim - Government notes that the description of the goods as given in all the import tallies with the description given in export documents. The foreign remittance is also received as per B.R.C. - Held that - Satisfaction is reached by inspection of the goods/packages, comparing the examination report or other connected documents relating to import formalities with examination of goods as reflected in the shipping bill against which drawback is claimed, there is a sufficient evidence on records as discussed above, to establish the identity of goods re-exported and correlate the re-exported goods with the imported goods. As such, identity of the goods gets established and applicants are eligible for drawback as claimed by them. Government set aside the impugned orders and diverts the original authority to sanction the said drawback if otherwise in order, revision application succeeds in terms of above.

Summary

Issues:
Identity of goods in a drawback claim under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed against an order-in-appeal rejecting a drawback claim of Rs. 10,33,516/- under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim due to the lack of established identity of the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the revision application before the Central Government.

The applicant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the grounds of appeal properly and did not follow relevant judgments cited. They contended that the examination report on the shipping bill, stating the identity of goods could not be established, should not have been solely relied upon. The applicant provided documentary evidence, including correspondence with the foreign supplier, to establish the identity of the goods.

The Government noted that the imported goods were re-exported, and the dispute arose from the lack of identification marks on the scrap. The examination report highlighted the inability to establish the identity of the goods based on marks or numbers. However, the applicant presented corroborative evidence, such as purchase orders, invoices, and correspondence with the supplier, to support the claim that the re-exported goods were indeed the same as the imported ones.

Referring to a previous Government Order, it was emphasized that if there is sufficient corroborative documentary evidence to show that wrongly imported goods have been re-exported, the identity of goods can be established. Considering the consistent description and weight of the goods in import and export documents, the Government found ample evidence to support the identity of the re-exported goods.

Consequently, the Government set aside the impugned orders and directed the original authority to sanction the drawback claimed by the applicants. The revision application was deemed successful based on the established identity of the goods through the presented documentary evidence.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around establishing the identity of goods in a drawback claim, emphasizing the importance of corroborative documentary evidence in the absence of physical identification marks. The decision highlighted the need to consider all available evidence to determine the identity of goods accurately in customs-related matters.