2009 (12) TMI 653 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision Application - drawback claim - appellant complied in respect of all the documents called for except the BRC, appellants were issued with a deficiency memo by DC, Customs ICD on 13-10-2006 calling for some more documents viz. CENVAT non utilization certification, Annexure-I and II, delay of condonation letter, and explanation of discrepancy on TR 6 challan, etc Held that - main conditions of Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 that the identity of re-exported goods is established w.r.t. to imported goods and goods are entered for export within two years from the date of payment of duty on importation thereof, are fulfilled. The drawback claim was initially filed on 6-4-06 and the other document required as per deficiencies pointed on the margin of drawback claim papers, were complied within the extended period of 3 months. Department was required to issue proper deficiency memo within 15 days which they failed to issue. The documents specified in Rule 5(2)(a) to (g) were submitted within extended period of 3 months which can be condoned by Assistant Commissioner, applicant had submitted all document mentioned in Rule 5(2)(a) to (g) within extended period of 3 months and therefore Assistant Commissioner should consider the condonation of delay and decide the drawback claim on merit, orders set aside and remands the case back to original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, revision application is disposed off

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred drawback claim under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Rejection of drawback claim by lower authorities.
3. Compliance with document submission requirements.
4. Consideration of condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a Revision Application filed against the rejection of a drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant, M/s. Xserve India (Pvt) Ltd., filed a drawback claim for goods exported under a shipping bill, but the claim was rejected as time-barred due to delays in submitting required documents, particularly the Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC).

2. The lower authorities rejected the drawback claim as time-barred, emphasizing the delay in submitting the BRC. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the filing of a Revision Application. The applicant argued that the rejection was based on irrelevant grounds, as the main requirement under Section 74 was to establish the identity of the goods exported and ensure the export occurred within two years of import.

3. The applicant contended that most documents were submitted promptly, and the delay in submitting the BRC was due to circumstances beyond their control, such as delays by the bank. The applicant highlighted that the BRC was not a mandatory document for sanctioning a claim under Section 74, and the submission of other required documents within the extended period should be considered.

4. Upon review, the Government found that the applicant had submitted all necessary documents within the extended period of three months, and the delay in submitting the BRC could be condoned by the Assistant Commissioner. The Government set aside the previous orders, remanding the case for reevaluation, emphasizing the importance of considering the condonation of delay and granting the applicant a fair opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the Revision Application was disposed of, with the case remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, taking into account the condonation of delay and deciding the drawback claim on its merits.