2018 (8) TMI 1935 - CGOVT - Customs

Maintainability of revision application - revision application filed after 7 months and 22 days from the receipts of the Order-in-Appeal - time limitation - request of the respondent for amendment of FOB value in Shipping bill for bank purpose only is allowed - drawback not claimed - HELD THAT - The revision application has been filed after 7 months and 22 days from the receipts of the Order-in-Appeal. But despite of delayed filing of revision application, no application for condonation of delay was filed along with the application and it was presented after long gap on 6-7-2015 on the ground that the revision application could not be filed on time due to administrative reasons. Further the said application is filed for condonation of delay of 20 days only even when the actual delay is 144 days. Even the nature of administrative reasons which might have prevented the applicant in filing the revision application in time are not explained in the application and above all the Government does not have any authority to condone the delay beyond 3 months in addition to normal period of 3 months in any circumstance under the aforesaid Section 129DD. Thus the delay of 144 days cannot be condoned by the Government at all in this case and accordingly revision application is clearly time-barred. The application is not found maintainable on merit also as the fact cannot be denied that the value of exported goods was admittedly enhanced by the Additional Commissioner of Customs by way of amendment in the shipping bill and once it was increased it cannot be claimed that it was only for banking purpose and not for drawback purpose. The revision application filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the revision application filing
2. Merit of the revision application regarding the amendment of FOB value in the shipping bill for drawback purposes

Analysis:
1. Timeliness of the revision application filing:
The Commissioner of Customs filed a revision application against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, alleging that the amendment of the FOB value in the shipping bill was allowed only for banking purposes and not for claiming drawback. The Government observed that the revision application was filed after 7 months and 22 days from the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal, exceeding the statutory time limit. The application for condonation of delay was filed after a significant delay of 144 days, which was beyond the authority of the Government to condone. The reasons for the delay were not adequately explained, and the Government determined that the revision application was clearly time-barred due to the excessive delay.

2. Merit of the revision application regarding the FOB value amendment:
The Government found that the value of the exported goods was indeed enhanced by the Additional Commissioner through an amendment in the shipping bill. It was noted that once the value was increased, it applied uniformly for all purposes, including drawback. The applicant failed to cite any legal provision allowing for different values for banking and drawback purposes. Therefore, the Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that there was no fault found in allowing the amendment for drawback purposes. Consequently, the revision application filed by the Revenue was rejected.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of timeliness in filing the revision application and the merit of allowing the FOB value amendment in the shipping bill for drawback purposes. The Government rejected the revision application due to being time-barred and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision regarding the uniformity of the exported goods' value for all purposes.