2022 (11) TMI 268 - HC - Customs

Refund of duty drawback on the customs component - All Industry Rate - Case of petitioner is that this position only stood clarified with the amendment issued via notification dated 31.10.2019 - HELD THAT - Noticeably, the amendment was brought to the notice of the Court, by the petitioner, via its rejoinder. No sur-rejoinder has been filed by the respondents - Concededly, the other aspects of the matter remain the same. The petitioner would not be required to have a brand rate of duty drawback fixed, based on actual duty-paid documents for the return of basic customs duty. To that extent, paragraph no. 7.06(b) of the FTP 2015-2020, prior to the amendment, is read down. Consequentially, paragraph no. 7.06(b) of the HBP 2015-2020, prior to the amendment, is also read down - the respondents are directed to accept and allow the claims of the petitioner, whereby duty drawback of the customs component on supplies made by the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit to the petitioner in the category of recipient of goods is made under Column B of All Industry Rate, without insisting on actual duty-paid documents. The writ petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of paragraph 7.06(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 (FTP 2015-2020) concerning refund of deemed export drawback.
2. Comparison of the impugned provision in the present matter with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1644/2019.
3. Effect of the amendment to paragraph 7.06 of FTP 2015-2020 via Notification No. 28/2015-2020.
4. Relief sought against paragraph 7.06(b) of the Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP 2015-2020).
5. Claiming refund of duty drawback on the customs component under Column 'B' of the All Industry Rate.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the interpretation of paragraph 7.06(b) of FTP 2015-2020 in the context of refund of deemed export drawback. It is noted that the impugned provision in the present case differs from the provision in the previous judgment, primarily in the location of the provision within the policy framework. The amendment to paragraph 7.06 of FTP 2015-2020, introduced via Notification No. 28/2015-2020 and given retrospective effect, is also considered in the analysis. The petitioner sought relief against paragraph 7.06(b) of HBP 2015-2020, and the judgment provides directions in this regard.

The core issue revolves around the petitioner's claim for a refund of duty drawback on the customs component under Column 'B' of the All Industry Rate. The judgment clarifies that the petitioner is not required to obtain a brand rate of duty drawback based on actual duty-paid documents for the return of basic customs duty. Consequently, paragraph 7.06(b) of FTP 2015-2020 and HBP 2015-2020, prior to the amendment, are read down to accommodate the petitioner's claim.

The court directs the respondents to accept and allow the petitioner's claims for duty drawback of the customs component without insisting on actual duty-paid documents. However, the petitioner must provide a disclaimer from the Domestic Tariff Area unit regarding duty drawback claims on the customs component for the relevant supplies. Notably, the judgment does not address the issue of damages or interest claimed by the petitioner, as per the statement made by the petitioner's counsel.

In conclusion, the reasoning applied in the previous judgment is extended to the present case, and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The judgment provides detailed directions to address the specific issues raised by the petitioner regarding the refund of duty drawback on the customs component, ensuring a fair and just resolution in line with the legal framework and policy provisions.