Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (7) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der claim for drawback of duty; that the Customs Department alleged that the garments were highly over valued and no drawback claim was admissible; that solely on consideration of the fact that delay in export of goods would have entailed rejection of export order and since 40% of the value of the goods had been realised by way of advance, the appellants prayed, under their letter dt. 19-3-1999 for immediate permission to export the consignment pending market enquiry; that no order was passed on their letter dt. 19-3-1999; that therefore, neither they were asked nor did they convert the 14 drawback shipping bills into free shipping bills. He, therefore, mentioned that the Commissioner of Customs, under Order-in-Original No. 16/99, dt. 9-4-9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lating to drawback was not covered by remand order is not correct; that the basis for withholding the shipment was the allegation of the Department that they were not eligible to get drawback as the value of goods was less than the amount of drawback; that the Commissioner in the earlier order has held that the drawback was not admissible in terms of Section 76 of the Customs Act; that the Tribunal permitted the export of the goods pending readjudication; that the ld. DR also had no objection to the export being permitted pending detailed examination of the valuation of the goods and claim to drawback (Para 4 of Tribunal s Final Order No. 877/99-A, dt. 21-6-1999). Finally he submitted that the finding in the impugned order that the claim of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise . 4. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR, submitted that the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner as he has not considered the question about the admissibility of drawback claims; that the charges against the Appellants, as is evident from the first Adjudication Order, were that the export goods were over valued in order to claim excess drawback of duties; that in the present order drawback has only been denied on the ground that the aspect relating to drawback was not covered by the remand order and the Appellant had given an undertaking not to claim the drawback without going into the question of admissibility of drawback on merits. He, therefore, prayed that the matter ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtment was hollow and could not hold as the market value of the impugned goods learnt from market sources, consignment-wise as well as cumulative-wise, was proved to be more than the amount of drawback claimed , it cannot now say that the exporter had given up his claim for drawback. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellants cannot be shut out from claiming drawback claim only on the basis of letter dt. 19-3-1999. 7. We also agree with the ld. Advocate that the remand order passed by Tribunal vide Order No. 877/99-A, dt. 21-6-1999 also dealt with the drawback claim. This is evident from the perusal of order as the Tribunal, while referring to allegation in Para 2 of the said order, has recorded that high export value has been de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates