1980 (4) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Drawback - Goods for export damaged in ship - Admissibility of - Export goods - Connotation of

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for drawback of duty on damaged goods exported by the petitioners.
- Interpretation of the term "export" under the Customs Act, 1962.
- Determination of whether the goods were exported out of India as per legal definitions.
- Validity of the orders passed by the Customs authorities rejecting the claim for drawback.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the claim for drawback of duty on goods exported by the petitioners, which were damaged during transportation on the ship M.V. Ratna Usha. The petitioners contended that the goods should be considered as exported since they were sold to a foreign buyer, and the property had passed to the buyer. However, the Customs authorities rejected the claim on the grounds that the goods had not crossed the customs frontier, and therefore, had not been exported out of the country.

The key legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "export" as defined in the Customs Act, 1962. Section 2(18) of the Act defines export as 'taking out of India to a place outside India.' The Court analyzed the definitions of 'export' and 'export goods' under the Act to determine whether the goods in question met the criteria for being considered as exported.

The Court emphasized that for an export to be recognized under the law, the goods must have been taken out of the territorial waters of India, beyond the 12 nautical miles limit. Despite the property passing to the foreign buyer and the goods being loaded on the ship, the Court held that the goods had not left the Port of Madras and therefore had not been exported as per the legal requirements.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that factors such as the passing of property, sale to a foreign buyer, or subsequent actions taken with the damaged goods were irrelevant in determining whether the goods had been exported out of India. The Court upheld the decisions of the Customs authorities, concluding that the goods had not met the legal definition of export, and thus, the claim for drawback of duty was rightly rejected.

In light of the above analysis, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, upholding the orders passed by the Customs authorities. The Court ruled that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.