2014 (5) TMI 23 - HC - Customs

Period of Limitation - Claim of drawback by export - Importation of seamless steel casing pipes Non-filing of copy of application for Extension - Section 16, 74 & 51 of the Customs Act Held that - The entry of the goods in the present case was on 9.12.1986 - Assessee sought to export the goods through a shipping bill presented on 30.11.1988 - However, the order u/s 51 permitting the re-export which was essential in this case and could be made after verification and inspection of the documents (this is also clear from the reference of section 51 u/s 74) was given on 22.12.1988, which is beyond two years from 9.12.1986 - This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's contentions are not substantial - The court notices that even though the petitioner asserts in this writ petition that an application for extension of time was made under proviso to section 74(1), nevertheless no copy of such application has been filed; such assertion was not apparently made before the revisional authority - In any case, there is no order extending the time beyond two years - The Court finds no infirmity with the order of the revisional authority Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under the Customs Act regarding drawback claim.
2. Consideration of time limits for claiming drawback under section 74.
3. Examination of the proviso allowing the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to extend the time period.
4. Analysis of sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act in relation to claiming drawback.
5. Verification of the essential requirements for re-export under section 51.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the claim of drawback under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner imported seamless steel casing pipes in 1986 and claimed drawback through export, with the final shipment completed in December 1988. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the claim was within the two-year time limit specified under section 74. However, the revisional authority set aside this order, emphasizing the two-year limitation period and disregarding the proviso enabling the CBEC to extend the period based on circumstances.

2. The petitioner contended that the revisional authority erred in focusing solely on the two-year limit under section 74 without considering the proviso allowing for an extension. It was argued that the shipping bill was presented within the stipulated time, and the limitation period should not have been strictly enforced. The respondents, on the other hand, highlighted the relevance of section 51 for clearance of goods for export, emphasizing the necessity of a 'Let Export' order to claim drawback under section 74.

3. The court observed that the petitioner's attempt to export the goods was delayed due to the 'Let Export' order under section 51, which was issued after the two-year period from the entry of goods. Despite the petitioner's claim of applying for an extension under the proviso to section 74, no supporting documentation was provided. As a result, the court found no fault with the revisional authority's decision, as no extension beyond the two-year limit was granted.

4. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the revisional authority's decision to set aside the Collector of Customs (Appeals) order. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the statutory provisions under the Customs Act and the necessity of meeting the essential requirements, such as obtaining a 'Let Export' order under section 51, for claiming drawback within the specified time limits.