2009 (12) TMI 645 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application - Drawback claim delay in filing claim - only Custom portion of Duty Drawback amount was released and the Central Excise portion was not released by the Department - Assistant Commissioner of Customs, rejected the claim as time barred - contentions of the exporter that due to the late receipt of the statement from the Bank, showing the drawback amount short released and their being busy in the various trade fairs during the period, there was a delay of about 3 months in filing of their supplementary drawback claim - delay was not condoned by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (Drawback) for being not found justifiable - Held that - Respondent s plea of late receipt of Bank statement is neither legal nor it can be considered as a binding requirement for the jurisdictional customs authorities. As regards second plea of remaining busy in various International Trade Fairs , Govt. is of the opinion that during such time-periods nobody stops his business activities and one has to make alternative arrangements for smooth functioning of their official work. Govt. does not find this plea of personal/internal busyness of the respondent as a valid reason so as to bind the Customs Authorities to act as per the convenience of individual exporter - clarificatory circulars/instructions/public notices issued from time to time are not mere formalities but are bindings not only for Customs authorities but for the trade also, Govt. finds the impugned order-in-appeal as not legal and proper and the same is hereby set aside. The impugned order-in-original passed by jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner (Drawback) is upheld, revision application succeeds

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing supplementary drawback claim.
2. Condonation of delay based on reasons provided.
3. Interpretation of Rule 15 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.

Issue 1: Delay in filing supplementary drawback claim

The case involves a dispute regarding the delay in filing a supplementary drawback claim by the exporter. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim as time-barred, leading to an appeal by the exporter before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner found the reasons for delay provided by the exporter to be strong and condoned the delay under Rule 15 of Drawback Rules. However, the applicant Commissioner challenged this decision, arguing that the reasons for delay were not proper based on guidelines issued by the Department.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay based on reasons provided

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) considered the reasons given by the exporter, such as delay due to late receipt of a bank statement and participation in international trade fairs, as sufficient to condone the delay in filing the supplementary drawback claim. On the other hand, the applicant Commissioner contended that these reasons were not justifiable under the guidelines provided in Public Notice No. 44/96. The Government analyzed the grounds for delay and concluded that the reasons cited by the exporter were not strong enough to warrant condonation of the delay, emphasizing that the onus of timely filing the claim lies with the exporter.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 15 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995

The Government examined Rule 15 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, which governs supplementary claims for drawback. The rule stipulates a three-month period for filing such claims, with a provision for extension under certain circumstances. The Government noted that the rule does not provide for condonation of delay except under specific conditions. It emphasized that the guidelines and circulars issued by the Department are binding on both Customs authorities and traders, as highlighted in a Supreme Court case. Consequently, the Government set aside the order-in-appeal and upheld the original order passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (Drawback).

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the complexities surrounding the delay in filing a supplementary drawback claim, the assessment of reasons for delay, and the interpretation of relevant rules and guidelines. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the legal framework governing customs matters.