9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order]. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The appellants imported 500 kg. of Doxycycline HCL and paid customs duty of Rs. 3,67,682/- through DEPB credit and additional customs duty of Rs. 2,12,740/- by cash. The impugned goods were subjected to chemical test in the factory of the appellants at Aurangabad when the same was found to be sub-standard. The Modvat credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that both the importations are independent and therefore, the claim of the appellants that they have paid duty twice on the same consignment is not correct. With these observations, he rejected the refund claim. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has stated as follows :- The Asstt. Commissioner in the impugned order has mentioned that the matter of DEPB re-credited claim has been dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be sub-standard for clearance from customs and hence this is not a case of refund of duty as provided under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly rejected the refund application. I am inclined to agree with the view of the lower authority as Section 27 has not been conceived for such a situation and there is a provision under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 to take care of such situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50A of the Handbook of Procedures 1997-2002 does allow re-export of defective goods. Against such re-export, the Commissioner of Customs is required to generate a certificate based on which the appellants could have obtained a fresh DEPB from the licensing authority. The para also stipulates that such fresh DEPB shall have the same port of registration and shall be valid for a period equivalent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 in such a situation. As pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that on re-export of the first consignment, the appellants could have filed drawback claim but only against the additional duty paid in cash within the time limit available after re-exporting the defective consignments. The appellants have also not shown any notification exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
