9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for refund of duty under Notification 159/90-Cus denied due to failure to fulfill conditions (b) and (d) - whether conditions are mandatory or directory. Analysis: The appellants obtained an advance license for kraft paper for export but did not claim exemption under Notification 159/90-Cus at the time of clearance due to an enhancement in license value. The lower authorities denied the refund claim citing non-fulfillment of conditions (b) and (d). The appellant argued that conditions (b) are directory as they paid higher duty rates, and making a written claim was unnecessary as conditions could be verified later. The issue of license value enhancement post-clearance was previously allowed by the Tribunal. The appellant requested a similar consideration for the current case and for a remand to verify other conditions of the notification. The SDR contended that conditions (b) and (d) are mandatory, emphasizing the specific requirements of the notification related to technical characteristics and specifications of imported materials. Not claiming the exemption deprived the revenue of examining the goods as per the notification's provisions. The SDR urged for dismissal of the appeal based on the mandatory nature of the conditions. In response, the appellant highlighted that the DEEC Book lacked detailed specifications for kraft paper, with the only restriction being "kraft paper other than ivory board." Thus, the examination of goods would not reveal additional technical characteristics. The appellant argued that in this case, the written claim condition should be considered directory rather than mandatory. The Tribunal acknowledged the SDR's argument on the mandatory nature of the claim requirement if goods had specific technical characteristics. However, in this case, where the goods were kraft paper without detailed specifications, the claim could be considered even without a written claim to the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to verify if other conditions of the notification were met, and if so, to grant the refund, subject to unjust enrichment provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
