2020 (9) TMI 528 - HC - Customs

Duty Drawback - non-realisation of sale proceeds - Failure to approach the Reserve Bank of India for obtaining the necessary extension - Rule 16A of the Drawback Rules - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the extension is granted by the Reserve Bank of India or whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief otherwise, being factual issues, could be determined by the Revisional Authority himself, in line with the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in ZAZ AND ZAZ PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS 2014 (3) TMI 840 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was also of the view that factual aspects requires to be verified by the Authorities and accordingly remanded back the matter. The matter is remanded back to the third respondent herein. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit the remaining 6 Shipping Bills and all other certificates and materials in support of his claim - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for drawback recovery on non-realization of sale proceeds
- Appeal rejection by second respondent
- Revision rejection by third respondent
- Request for remand by petitioner
- Objection by Standing Counsel
- Interpretation of Drawback Rules and RBI Circulars
- Remand decision by the court

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the recovery of drawback due to non-realization of sale proceeds by the petitioner, who had exported goods through 11 Shipping Bills in 2000-01. The first respondent issued a notice for recovery based on information from the Reserve Bank of India, leading to the confirmation of proposed recovery in 2003. Subsequent appeals to the second and third respondents were rejected, prompting the petitioner to file a Writ Petition.

The petitioner, possessing 6 Shipping Bills, expressed willingness to substantiate their case before the Authorities and sought a lenient view for remanding the matter. However, the Standing Counsel for the respondents objected, citing Rule 16A of the Drawback Rules and RBI Circulars, stating that failure to approach RBI for necessary extension precludes reconsideration.

The court, considering the factual nature of the issue, referred to a previous decision and opined that the Revisional Authority should verify the factual aspects. It highlighted that the petitioner's entitlement to relief should be determined in line with prevailing rules and circulars, emphasizing the need for verification by the Authorities. As a result, the court decided to remand the matter back to the third respondent for further consideration.

Consequently, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to submit the remaining Shipping Bills and supporting materials for review by the third respondent. The directive was for the third respondent to evaluate the submission on its merits and in accordance with the law promptly. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.