9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for duty drawback under Section 74 and Section 75 of the Customs Act. Analysis: 1. The applicants imported insulin products and re-exported them after repacking and relabelling. The original authority rejected the duty drawback claim under Section 74 and Section 75 due to various reasons, including the failure to meet the stipulated time limit for conversion of the claim and the issue of identity of the re-exported goods compared to the imported goods. 2. The applicants argued that the goods were not manufactured in India and were in marketable condition at the time of import. They obtained permission for repacking and relabelling, and the goods were re-exported to Russia after undergoing necessary testing. The quantity of imported and re-exported goods matched, and examination reports confirmed the goods' descriptions matched the import and re-export documents. 3. The Government observed that the impugned goods were specific products made by only one manufacturer globally. They agreed with the applicants that the goods were re-exported in the same form as imported. The Government also accepted the reason for the delay in filing the claim under Section 75. 4. The original authority's rejection based on the identity of the goods post-repacking and relabelling was deemed incorrect. The Apex Court's rulings emphasized that the process should result in a distinct new article, which was not the case here as the nature of the goods remained the same. 5. The impugned goods fell under Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, where 'packing' did not amount to manufacture. The process of re-packing and re-labelling, as per legal precedents, did not change the character of the goods and did not amount to manufacture. 6. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay and CEGAT rulings supported the argument that re-packing and re-labelling do not constitute manufacture if they do not alter the goods' nature. The lower authority's findings on manufacture and identification of goods were declared untenable, and the duty drawback claims under Section 74 were deemed admissible. 7. The claim for interest was considered premature as per the rules. Consequently, the Revision Application was allowed, setting aside the lower authorities' orders and approving the duty drawback claims under Section 74.
|
