2018 (2) TMI 1963 - CGOVT - Customs

Recovery of Drawback amount - they had realised the export proceeds well in time and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered this fact while rejecting their appeal - Rule 16A of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically observed that the dates of realization of the export proceeds are 20-9-2011, 15-11-2011 and 22-2-2012 in respect of Shipping Bill Nos. 1037266, dated 19-2-2008, No. 1037871, dated 31-3-2008 and Shipping Bill No. 1040217, dated 19-8-2008 respectively. He has further recorded that no document from the RBI regarding extension of initial period of six months for realization of export proceeds has been produced before him. The Government has also noticed that the applicant has not produced any evidence along with the Revision Application or otherwise to prove that they had realized export proceeds in respect of above mentioned three Shipping Bills within specified period of six months from the date of export and dates of realization mentioned by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order are undoubtedly much beyond the prescribed period of six months. No document issued by RBI is also produced to evidence that the applicant was allowed to realize the export proceeds beyond the period of six months. No extension from RBI is obviously procured and received by the applicant and the copy of BRC is actually not submitted for consideration. Above all, the delay in realization of the export proceeds as mentioned in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which are referred above in this order, also are much beyond the period extended by J K Bank even though this bank is not a competent authority for giving any such extension - Considering all these facts, the Government finds that the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to establish that they have received export proceeds within six months or within extended time granted by the RBI. Accordingly, no fault is found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of drawback amount under Rule 16A of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.
2. Delay in filing Revision Application and condonation of delay.
3. Failure to provide evidence of realization of export proceeds within the specified period.

Analysis:
1. The Revision Application was filed against the rejection of an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the recovery of a drawback amount. The applicant contended that they had realized the export proceeds on time and the Commissioner did not consider this fact. The Government found the reason for the delay in filing the Revision Application genuine and condoned the delay.

2. On the merit of the Revision Application, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted specific dates of realization of export proceeds, which were beyond the prescribed period of six months. The applicant failed to produce any evidence to prove timely realization, neither during the personal hearing nor in subsequent submissions. The documents submitted were deemed insufficient, with no extension from the RBI or Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) provided. The Government concluded that the applicant did not establish timely receipt of export proceeds, upholding the Commissioner's decision.

3. Despite the applicant's arguments and submissions, including an application to extend the realization period granted by a bank, the lack of concrete evidence led to the rejection of the Revision Application. The Government emphasized the necessity of providing valid documentation to support claims of timely realization of export proceeds. Consequently, the Revision Application by M/s. M.A. Exports was dismissed.