2012 (11) TMI 114 - AT - Central Excise

EPCG authorization - export obligation - benefit of export obligation to third party - Held that - Under the scheme in force to obtain such a result M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. should have made the exports as exporters indicating the goods to have been manufactured by the appellants. However this has not been done. - No exports have been made by M/s. Infocus Marketing Service Ltd. - exports have been made by the appellants themselves directly under claim of drawback - Customs authorities have rightly refused to make the post facto amendments sought for by the appellants with a view to benefit M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. Such benefits they could have got if they were the exporters clearly indicating the name of their supporting manufacturer(s) and enabling the Customs authorities to make necessary verification in that regard - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Claim of drawback for exported goods, amendment to shipping bills, EPCG scheme obligations, post facto amendments, benefit to another company.

Analysis:
The appellants, who are manufacturers, exported goods under claim of drawback and sought to amend the shipping bills to benefit another company, M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd., under the EPCG scheme. The jurisdictional Commissioner rejected the request for post facto amendments as M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. was not involved in the original exports. The advocates' arguments were deemed convoluted, with the drawback scheme explained as straightforward for exporters to claim duty suffered by export goods. Additionally, the EPCG scheme allows manufacturers to meet export obligations through direct exports or exports via a third party. The appellants claimed that M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. had imported and installed machinery in their factory under EPCG authorization, seeking to count their exports towards M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd.'s export obligation. However, as M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. did not make any exports themselves, the Customs authorities rightly refused the post facto amendments to benefit them. The refusal was based on the requirement for exporters to clearly indicate their supporting manufacturers for verification purposes. Consequently, the relief sought for M/s. Infocus Marketing and Service Ltd. was disallowed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.