2010 (2) TMI 483 - AT - Customs

Drawback on deemed export - Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, passed the impugned Order by holding that the goods in question are liable for confiscation. He also rejected the drawback claim and imposed penalties on the Appellants. Contention of the Appellants is that the Commissioner of Customs has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of drawback in respect of Deemed Export, as no claim has been filed before the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act. Held that - rejection of drawback claim not sustainable. Matter requiring re-adjudication. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for de novo adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in deciding drawback claims for Deemed Exports.

Analysis:
The case involved the Appellant, a supplier, supplying Wall Covering (Article of Silk) to another Appellant, a 100% E.O.U., to be treated as Deemed Export. The Appellant claimed drawback under the Foreign Trade Policy, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. The main contention was that the Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to decide the drawback issue for Deemed Exports. The Appellants argued that the claim was filed with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, not the Customs Authorities, and thus the rejection was without jurisdiction. The Revenue's contention was that the drawback claim was rejected due to discrepancies in the value of goods exported.

The Tribunal found that the jurisdiction issue was central to the case. Since no drawback claim was filed with the Customs Authorities by the Appellants, and the claim was made with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade by the DTA Supplier, the rejection of the drawback claim by the Commissioner of Customs was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider all issues, including jurisdiction, and provide the Appellants with a hearing opportunity. The Appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdictional considerations in deciding drawback claims for Deemed Exports.

This judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional clarity in deciding drawback claims for Deemed Exports. It clarifies that Customs Authorities may not have jurisdiction if the claim is made with other relevant authorities, such as the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The decision underscores the need for proper procedures and considerations in such cases, ensuring a fair and lawful adjudication process.