2015 (10) TMI 1719 - AT - Customs

Denial of registration of DEPB licence and DEPB script - re-export has not been taken place from the same Port - Held that - re-export have been done as required under the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act. I also find that all the facts have also been recorded in both certificates dated 21.4.2009 and 3.6.2009 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs addressed to the Joint DGFT. Further, in view of the Circular No. 71/2002-Cus which gave specific direction to the Customs authorities not to insist for re-export from the same Port in case of duty drawback. Accordingly, I hold that the said Circular is binding on the Revenue authorities, and the learned Commissioner is in error in refusing to allow registration of the DEPB scrip issued - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Registration of DEPB license and DEPB script refused due to re-export not from the same Port as import.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Refusal of Registration: The appellant, M/s Cipla Ltd., filed an appeal against the refusal of registration of DEPB license and DEPB script by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III. The refusal was based on the grounds that re-export did not take place from the same Port as the goods were imported. The appellant had imported goods under two separate Bills of Entries and re-exported them after obtaining permission from JNPT Customs authorities under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, certificates were issued for the refund of duty amount debited/paid.

2. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the Customs department certified the re-export of the same goods and issued certificates enabling the appellant to obtain fresh DEPB certificates. The refusal to register the DEPB scrips was deemed unjust as it contradicted the certification by Customs authorities. The appellant also cited Customs Circular No. 71/2002, which clarified that re-export under Section 74 should be allowed without insisting on re-export from the same Port, thus supporting the appellant's case for registration.

3. Decision and Rationale: After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that re-export was in compliance with Section 74 of the Customs Act. The certificates issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs confirmed the re-export of goods and entitlement to duty re-credit. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the relevance of Customs Circular No. 71/2002, which directed not to insist on re-export from the same Port for duty drawback cases. Consequently, the Tribunal held the Circular binding on Revenue authorities and deemed the refusal to register the DEPB scrips erroneous. The appeal was allowed, directing the Commissioner of Customs to register both DEPB scrips as per the communication received earlier.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions, certification by Customs authorities, and the applicability of relevant circulars in determining the registration of DEPB license and DEPB script in cases of re-export.