2023 (5) TMI 457 - HC - Customs

Benefit of Duty Drawback claim - requirement to file a supplementary claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 in order to claim benefit of duty drawback - whether this is the only recourse available to the petitioner or not - HELD THAT - A memo has been filed by the Panel Counsel that reads that Since there was a mis-match resulting in short shipment in the number of packages in the Shipping Bill No.9663177 dated 2/11/17, the above shipping bill was not processed for refund. Subsequently, the petitioner through their Customs House Agent dt.25/1/2019 requested to issue export certificates carrying out the correction which was issued on 11/02/2019. Since the Customs House Agent had not re-registered the amended/corrected export order/shipping bill within 15 days the said shipping bill / let export order purged and the refund was not processed. The petitioner relies on a decision in the case of M/S. ABI TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN. 2022 (5) TMI 1136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the prayer was for a mandamus directing the respondents to sanction a particular sum as refund. That matter is distinguishable in light of the factual finding returned by the learned Judge to the effect that all details had been furnished by that petitioner correctly in the relevant forms and it was entitled for the refund sought. In the present case, the stuffing report admittedly contains an error. There are no legal infirmity in the impugned order - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The challenge to a letter from the Commissioner of Customs regarding drawback benefit claim and error in stuffing report leading to short shipment and refund processing issues.

Regarding the challenge to the letter from the Commissioner of Customs:
The writ petition challenged a letter stating the only recourse for claiming drawback benefit is to file a supplementary claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents claimed the error in the stuffing report, where the number of packages was entered incorrectly as 121 instead of 100, was at the petitioner's instance. Due to this error, the shipping bill moved to short shipment, causing a mis-match in the Export General Manifest (EGM) and hindering the processing of the export bill for drawback. The petitioner's delay in approaching the Officer resulted in the shipping bill purging before an order of 'let export' was issued.

Regarding the refund processing issues:
The petitioner sought a refund for a shipping bill not processed due to a mis-match resulting in short shipment. Despite efforts to correct the error and retrieve the shipping bill, it was not possible, leading to the refund not being processed. The petitioner relied on a previous case where a refund was granted based on correct details furnished, which is distinguishable from the present case where an error in the stuffing report existed. The court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to follow the procedure under the Act and obtain relief from the authorities as per the law.