2016 (11) TMI 138 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Duty Drawback - All Industry Rates - conversion of 24 free shipping bills to the drawback shipping bills - para 4 of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.9.2010 - principles of natural justice - Held that - the decision in the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Visakhapatnam-II 2015 (11) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT relied upon where it was held that there was no reason for denying the benefit only on the ground that at the time when the appellant had sought the duty drawback, the goods could not be physically examined. Matter remanded back to the original adjudicating authority, who is directed to decide the matter afresh within one month of receipt of this order in terms of para 4 of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.9.2010 and Rule 12 of Customs, Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Rules, 1994 after giving sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and production of evidence to the appellant - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills for claiming duty drawback.
2. Alleged contravention of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involves the conversion of 24 free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills for claiming duty drawback. The appellant, represented by Advocate Shri Puneet Bansal, argued for the conversion based on the All Industry Rates of duty drawback. The appellant also filed an application for drawback without conversion, citing CBEC Circular No.36/2010-Customs. The Revenue, represented by AR Shri M.R. Sharma, supported the findings in the impugned order by the Commissioner, Customs, ICD, TKD. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and case laws, found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of mitigating circumstances justifying their inability to claim drawback earlier or comply with Rule 12 of Drawback Rules, 1995. The Tribunal referred to the principles of natural justice and decided to remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision within one month, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

Issue 2: The appellant raised concerns regarding the alleged contravention of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. They claimed that they were not given sufficient opportunity to explain their case and that the adjudicating authority did not follow natural justice principles. The Tribunal acknowledged these concerns and, in light of the appellant's arguments and relevant legal precedents, directed the original adjudicating authority to reexamine the matter with a focus on providing the appellant with a fair chance to present evidence and be heard. This decision reflects the Tribunal's commitment to upholding procedural fairness and ensuring that parties are given adequate opportunities to defend their positions in customs matters.

Overall, the judgment addresses the issues of conversion of shipping bills for claiming duty drawback and the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in customs adjudication processes. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case underscores the significance of fair procedures and the right to be heard in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the need for a thorough and just consideration of all relevant factors in customs disputes.