9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of drawback on imported goods due to substandard quality. 2. Identification of goods for claiming drawback. 3. Determination of market value for claiming drawback. 4. Interpretation of Section 76 of the Act regarding drawback claim. 5. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding replacement goods. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a beverage manufacturer, imported Tetra Brick aseptic packing material in July 1986, which was later found to be substandard. Upon advice from the supplier, the appellant exported a portion of the imported goods in 1988 under a drawback claim. The Department issued a notice proposing to deny the drawback, primarily citing the discrepancy in market value compared to the claimed drawback amount. 2. The notice issued did not specifically mention the inability to identify the exported goods with the imported ones. The Additional Collector's finding that the identity of the goods could not be established exceeded the scope of the notice and was deemed unsustainable. 3. Section 76 of the Act states that no drawback shall be paid if the market value of the exported goods is less than the claimed drawback amount. The appellant argued that the Customs officers were unable to accurately determine the market value as they were the sole user of the particular packing material in India. The lack of a market for the goods domestically was highlighted, questioning the basis for determining the market price. 4. The supplier's letter indicated that the exported goods were unsuitable for use as packing material even after reprocessing, potentially rendering them as scrap. The department's view that the goods had lost their character as packing material was considered reasonable. The appellant failed to provide evidence of a higher value for the goods, making it challenging to ascertain that the market value was not less than the claimed drawback. 5. The judgment in Hindustan Malleables and Forging P. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector was distinguished from the current case as it involved replacement goods, unlike the present scenario where no replacement took place. The court emphasized the lack of equivalence between the value of the exported goods and that of any replacement components. 6. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of the drawback claim based on the discrepancies in market value and the inability to establish the exported goods' suitability for use as packing material.
|
