2015 (3) TMI 859 - CGOVT - Customs

Power of deputy Commissioner - Power to condone delay - Duty drawback claim - Held that - The delay in filing drawback claim in both the cases was less than 3 months - As per provision of Rule 5 of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 as amended, the AC/DC of Customs is empowered to extend the initial period of 3 months by a period of the three months. - department has not challenged the genuinity of drawback claim but questioned the competency of AC/DC to condone the delay on the ground that condonation application was filed after six months. In this regard, Government observes that the delay involved in filing drawback claim is calculated from the date of Let Export Order to the date of filing drawback claim. In this case, as discussed above, the delay is less than 3 months and AC/DC of Customs has rightly condoned the delay - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging competency of AC/DC to condone delay in filing drawback claim.

Analysis:
The revision applications were filed by the Commissioner of Customs challenging the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in two cases. The first case involved the import of parts of a color sorting machine by M/s. M.S. Sorters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, where a duty was paid and later re-exported. The second case pertained to the import of Neon Boards and other items by the same company. The Deputy Commissioner (DBK), Bangalore had condoned the delay and sanctioned the drawback claims. However, the Commissioner of Customs reviewed the orders on the grounds that the claims were filed after the prescribed time limit and the fee for condonation of delay was paid after the expiry of six months from the date of Let Export Order.

The department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected, leading to the revision applications under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Central Government. The department contended that the delay in filing the claims exceeded the prescribed time limit and the fee paid was insufficient. They argued that the claims should have been rejected due to the delay in filing and non-payment of the correct fee. The respondent reiterated the findings in the order-in-appeal.

Upon careful consideration of the case records and orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal, the Government noted that the delay in filing the claims was within three months in both cases. As per the Rules, the AC/DC of Customs had the authority to extend the initial period of three months by another three months. The department did not question the genuineness of the claims but challenged the competency of the AC/DC to condone the delay, claiming that the application was filed after six months. However, the Government found that the delay was less than three months in both cases, and the AC/DC had rightfully condoned the delay. Therefore, the Government upheld the orders-in-appeal, rejecting the revision applications.

In conclusion, the Government found no merit in the department's contentions regarding the competency of the AC/DC to condone the delay in filing the drawback claims. As a result, the revision applications were rejected, and the impugned orders-in-appeal were upheld.