2001 (1) TMI 115 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Drawback.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant importing raw materials under Notification No. 80/95 and exporting goods against quantity-based licenses issued in discharge of export obligations. The appellant applied for licenses on various dates and exported goods governed by Exim Policy 1992-1997. The authorities rejected the claim for converting DEEC S/Bs into DEEC-cum-Drawback S/Bs. The appellant argued that the Government issued a circular allowing conversion of Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills for exports made before 31-5-1995. The appellant requested relaxation of conditions for claiming drawback, which was rejected by the Commissioner. The appellant contended that despite procedural delays, the beneficial provision of Drawback should be liberally interpreted. The appellant cited precedents supporting the liberal interpretation of beneficial provisions and argued for the relaxation of procedural requirements.

The Revenue argued that the relaxation under Rule 12(1) of the Customs and Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 was not applicable to the appellant due to the timing of their application. There was a clerical mistake in recording dates for some shipments, which the appellant claimed should not disallow the Drawback claim. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in rejecting the Drawback claim.

The Tribunal noted that the goods were exported under White Shipping Bills, indicating no Drawback was claimed. However, the goods were exported in discharge of export obligations, and CVD was paid at the time of import in compliance with Notification No. 80/95. The Tribunal considered the procedural lapse as the appellant and their Customs House Agent were not fully informed about the requirements of the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that denying the benefit of a beneficial provision due to procedural lapses should be avoided. Citing precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that there was no risk to Revenue as the goods were legitimately exported, and the procedural errors were clerical in nature. The Tribunal directed that consequential relief, if applicable, should be granted to the appellant in accordance with the law.