2016 (8) TMI 428 - AT - Customs

Permission to file manual shipping bill advance authorization scheme Held that - the Customs Duty subsequently paid by the appellant is also the Customs Duty paid upon importation appellant entitled to file manual shipping bill. Imported goods re-exported drawback under section 74 Held that - The Customs authority directed to examine the goods under export in order to satisfy themselves that the goods are the same which were imported earlier by the appellant and make such verification of the goods as deemed fit with respect to the claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act drawback granted appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Refusal of permission to file manual shipping bill
- Determination of duty of Customs paid upon importation

Analysis:
The primary issue in this Customs appeal is the justification of the learned Commissioner's refusal to grant permission for the filing of a manual shipping bill and the classification of the duty of Customs paid subsequent to import on goods initially imported under the advance license scheme. The appellant, M/s Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Ltd., imported packing materials for manufacturing excisable goods for export but later decided to re-export the unutilized materials to their UK plant. The appellant sought permission for manual shipping bill filing and drawback of duty paid under Section 74 of the Customs Act. The Principal Commissioner rejected the request, stating that the goods imported under the advance license scheme cannot be exported under claim of drawback without explicit provisions. The appellant argued that the duty subsequently paid is the duty paid upon importation and relied on precedents where differential duty paid before re-export was considered eligible for drawback under Section 74.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the duty paid subsequent to importation is indeed the duty paid upon importation, as it was the duty payable at the time of import. They referenced rulings where differential duty paid before re-export was deemed eligible for drawback under Section 74, emphasizing that the duty paid subsequently should be treated as duty paid at the time of importation. The Counsel also referred to a full bench decision stating that no fee is payable in appeals relating to refund of Excise Duty or Customs duty under Section 129 (A)(6) of the Customs Act.

After considering the arguments, it was held that the Customs Duty subsequently paid by the appellant is indeed the duty paid upon importation. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to file a manual shipping bill under Section 50 read with Section 74 of the Customs Act. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, and the impugned order of the learned Commissioner was set aside. The Customs authority was directed to verify the exported goods to ensure they match the imported goods and examine the claim under Section 74. Additionally, it was determined that no fee was payable by the appellant in this case, as there was no duty, interest, or penalty under dispute.