2012 (6) TMI 699 - HC - Customs

Writ petitions - Duty Drawback imported goods re-exported because goods were found to be defective in nature claim rejected on the ground that petitioner had not submitted the required documents as per the Deficiency Memo - petitioner had furnished the Non-availment of Central Value Added Taxes Certificate to the respondent - Held that - Petitioner ought to have submitted the required documents as per the Deficiency Memo dated 23.10.2009 within 30 days of its receipt by the petitioner - said memo is said to have been issued by the respondent on 23.10.2009 nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondent as to when it had been received by the petitioner - petitioner had stated that the Central Value Added Taxes Certificate had been submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Petitioner is entitled for the grant of duty draw back under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to grant duty draw back - writ petition stands allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
Claim for Duty Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962; Compliance with Drawback Rules for submission of necessary documents; Refusal to accept Duty Drawback claim by the respondent; Availability of alternative remedies; Interpretation of Deficiency Memo requirements; Time limitation for submitting required documents; Judicial precedent on the necessity of Bank Realization Certificate for Duty Drawback claims.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial enzymes, imported goods for repacking and further sale. Upon finding the imported goods defective, the petitioner re-exported them and filed a claim for Duty Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent issued a Deficiency Memo, requiring specific documents such as the Non-Availment of Cenvat Certificate and Bank Realization Certificate. The petitioner submitted the necessary documents within the specified time frame, but the respondent refused to accept the claim, citing it as 'Not Filed' and time-barred. The petitioner approached the High Court through writ petitions seeking relief.

The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to submit the required documents within the prescribed time limit as per the Drawback Rules, justifying the rejection of the claim. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have availed alternative remedies like filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of directly approaching the High Court. The respondent emphasized the importance of complying with the time limitation and document submission requirements as specified in the Rules.

The High Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and referred to previous judicial decisions regarding the necessity of certain documents like the Bank Realization Certificate for Duty Drawback claims. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed submitted the required documents within a reasonable time frame, as per the Deficiency Memo issued by the respondent. The Court also highlighted that the Bank Realization Certificate may not be essential for considering Duty Drawback claims, based on established legal precedents.

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the respondent's decision to reject the Duty Drawback claim and directed the respondent to accept the claim in respect of the exported goods. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was entitled to Duty Drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordered the respondent to grant the Duty Drawback within a specified time frame. The writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party.