2017 (8) TMI 92 - HC - Customs

Duty Drawback claim - supplementary claim - The petitioner had exported prime mild steel concast billets by two separate shipping bills bearing nos. 5318141 and 5318142 both dated July 12, 2006. The dispute is in respect of shipping bill no. 5318141. The petitioner being entitled to a duty drawback of ₹ 36,10,796/- in respect of the disputed bill had lodged its claim. The same has been denied at the revisional stage - Held that - the claim for two duty drawbacks were lodged in respect of shipping bills of the same date. The claims were adjudicated upon electronically. It is an admitted fact that, apart from the data being available electronically, the department did not serve any notice or any information to the petitioners in hard form. The respondents have also failed to substantiate that the petitioners had access to the electronic data at that material point of time and, therefore, were aware of the queries made - The petitioners, however, lodged a supplementary claim immediately upon coming to know of the decision of the authorities to scroll the subject shipping bill as zero drawback and sent it to history. Such conduct also establishes that, the authorities have not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim for duty drawback. The authorities are requested to adjudicate upon the claim for duty drawback - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to refusal of drawback claim in respect of a shipping bill dated July 12, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioners exported prime mild steel concast billets under two shipping bills dated July 12, 2006, seeking drawback claims of &8377; 36,10,796/- and &8377; 19,98,616/-. The electronic shipping bill itself was treated as a claim for drawback as per Rule 13(5) of the Drawback Rules 1995. While one claim was allowed, the claim for the shipping bill in question was rejected due to queries raised in the EDI System, to which the petitioners had no access. A supplementary claim was filed upon becoming aware of the issue, which was later rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, citing time limitations and improper application. The appeal allowed the claim to be considered on merits, but a revision disallowed it, leading to the present writ petition.

The main contention was the petitioner's lack of access to the queries raised in the EDI System, resulting in the unattended queries and subsequent rejection of the claim. The respondents argued that the supplementary claim was time-barred and the petitioner was guilty of delay. The Court noted the electronic filing of shipping bills and lack of access to the EDI System by the petitioners. Queries for submission of documents were not proven to be served on the petitioners, leading to the rejection of the claim. The petitioners promptly filed a supplementary claim upon learning of the rejection, indicating that the authorities had not adjudicated the claim on its merits.

The Court found that the duty drawback claims were electronically adjudicated without serving any hard notice to the petitioners. The lack of evidence showing the petitioners had access to electronic data or were aware of the queries raised supported the petitioners' case. The immediate filing of a supplementary claim upon learning of the rejection demonstrated the authorities had not properly adjudicated the claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the revisional order and directed the authorities to adjudicate the duty drawback claim within the limitation period, considering the claim to be made on time.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.