9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim for duty-free concession under Notification No. 159/90-Cus. 2. Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities. 3. Interpretation of conditions of the notification. 4. Effect of circular by Directorate of Drawback on the claim. 5. Compliance with export obligations under the advance license. 6. Technicality of claiming concession at the time of clearance. 7. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on similar cases. Analysis: 1. The case involved the appellants filing a Bill of Entry for importing pig lead, initially claiming 50% duty, then duty-free, and later reverting to 50%. The appellants sought a refund under Notification No. 159/90-Cus., which grants duty-free concessions for materials imported against advance licenses. The lower authorities rejected the claim as the notification required the claim to be made at the time of clearance. 2. The advocate for the appellants argued that they possessed a relevant advance license and had cleared previous consignments against it with the benefit of the notification. Due to objections by customs authorities based on a circular by the Directorate of Drawback, the appellants did not claim the concession at the time of clearance for the 5th consignment. The circular advised against allowing clearance against an advance license for supporting manufacturers. 3. The JDR contended that the notification's condition mandated the claim at the time of clearance, precluding subsequent claims. The JDR highlighted discrepancies in the appellants' initial claims and cancellations as evidence of deliberate non-claiming of the notification's benefit. 4. The Tribunal noted the confusion caused by the Directorate of Drawback circular, which influenced the appellants' actions regarding the duty-free concession claim. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants did not claim the benefit initially due to the circular's impact, leading to the subsequent confusion in claiming and not claiming the concession. 5. Regarding export obligations, the advocate argued that they had already met the obligations before importing raw materials under the advance license, negating the need for further undertakings with the authorities. The Tribunal found that denial of the notification's benefit based solely on the timing of the claim was unjustified, considering the peculiar circumstances and the appellants' intention to claim the benefit. 6. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' hyper-technical view and the JDR's argument, emphasizing the peculiar circumstances and the impact of the Directorate of Drawback circular on the appellants' actions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants. 7. The Tribunal's decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, recognizing the confusion caused by the circular and the appellants' genuine intention to claim the duty-free concession under Notification No. 159/90-Cus.
|
