2018 (8) TMI 1941 - CGOVT - Customs

Duty Drawback sanctioned at reduced rates - benefit of N/N. 23/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008 - HELD THAT - The revision application has been filed on 21-10-2015 against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-6-2015. Since the date of receipt of the said Order-in-Appeal by the applicant was not mentioned in the revision application, this office vide letter dated 27-10-2015 requested the applicant to provide the date of communication of the Order-in-Appeal. But its communication to the applicant was not informed even thereafter till now. Hence, there is no option but to consider the date of Order-in-Appeal as its communication date also particularly when the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is situated in the main Custom House itself in Kolkata where the office of the applicant is also located. Thus in absence of any specific date given by applicant, it can be assumed that the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-6-2015 was received by the applicant on 30-6-2015 itself and accordingly the revision application dated 21-10-2015 is filed beyond three months from the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal. Even if the Order-in-Appeal may have been received a few days after 30-6-2015 still the revision application is filed beyond three months. The revision application is also not found maintainable on merit also as the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is entirely based on an assumption that the re-exported goods had been used after importation thereof because the respondent had not declared that they had not used the same prior to re-export. But this conclusion is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever and it is not supported even by the examination report of customs officer in dock who had examined the re-exported goods. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Revision of Customs Duty Drawback Claim based on re-exported goods.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Timeliness of Revision Application:
The Commissioner of Customs filed a revision application against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-6-2015, which allowed the appeal of the respondent regarding the drawback claim. The Government noted that the revision application was filed on 21-10-2015, beyond the normal 3-month period for filing such applications as per Section 129DD(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite a request for the date of communication of the Order-in-Appeal, the applicant did not provide it. The Government inferred that the Order-in-Appeal was received on 30-6-2015 itself, making the revision application time-barred. No application for condonation of delay was filed, leading to the rejection of the application as time-barred.

2. Issue of Merit of the Revision Application:
The revision application contended that the re-exported goods were not used and should be considered new, contrary to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Government observed that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was based on an assumption of prior use due to the lack of declaration by the respondent regarding the usage of goods. However, this assumption lacked evidence or support from the examination report of the customs officer. The respondent's omission of the declaration in the Shipping Bill was not rectified by the Customs assessing officer, leading to a lack of evidence to establish prior use of the goods. The Government found no infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal and rejected the revision application on merit as well.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of timeliness in filing revision applications and the necessity of evidence to support claims regarding customs duty drawbacks. The decision emphasizes the need for accurate declarations and proper documentation to substantiate claims, failing which, applications may be rejected.