9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w to know God" for Rs. 3883.50 CIF (US$ 90) (2) Beta SP feature films and trailer of "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" for Rs. 3883.50 CIF (US$ 90) (3) Licence fee for "How to know God" and "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" of Rs. 1,72,600/- (CIF US$ 4000) Rs. 1,72,600/- (CSF US$ 4000). The goods were imported from M/s. PFG Entertainment USA with invoice value inclusive of US$ 4000 as 100% licence fee payable for Indian Right for receiving Home Video Right to reproduce, distribute and resell copies in India from the master of the educational Cinema films i.e. Deepak Chopra's two feature films "How to know God" and "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success". The exporter claimed drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and valuations for the purpose of determining drawback under Section 74. 4.3 The Notification issued under Section 74 provides for percentage of import duty to be paid as drawback depending on the period between the date of clearance for home consumption and the date when the goods are placed under Customs control for exports. The Notification No. 19-Cus./6-2-65 (as amended) does not permit the Dy. Commissioner to deduct any amounts for any other reason than those prescribed in the Notification. In the Notification there are no other reasons, especially the reasons as arrived at by the learned Dy. Commissioner, to deduct the amount of duty originally paid to be sanctioned as drawback. 4.4 The reading of the proviso to Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant has declared all particulars and none of those particulars are found to be incorrect or misleading. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 20-4-2012, 21-12-2012, and 22-2-2013 but nobody attended personal hearing. Applicant vide letter dated 9-4-2012 requested to fix hearing in Mumbai as their advocate cannot travel to Delhi to attend hearing on 20-4-2012. Next hearing was fixed on 21-12-2012 at Mumbai. Again, applicant vide letter dated 21-12-2012 requested to adjuourn hearing as their advocate was not available. Third hearing was fixed on 22-2-2013 but the same was also not attended by applicant. He made a request for adjournment of hearing. There is no valid reason for seeking adjournment of hearing again. Hence Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of import. Government observes the applicant paid duty at the time of import under protest as the customs authorities at the time of import held that such licence fee should be chargeable to duty. When the applicant paid duty 'under protest', he ought to have sought the option of refund in terms of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which he failed to do in this case. Admissibility of drawback is governed by Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires certain conditions to be fulfilled. 9. The drawback of duty paid at the time of import can be obtained on re-export under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as under :- "Drawback allowable on re-export of duty-paid goods. - (1) When any goods capable of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n sub-section (1), the rate of drawback in the case of goods which have been used after the importation thereof shall be such as the Central Government, having regard to the duration of use, depreciation in value and other relevant circumstances, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix. (3) The Central Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and, in particular, such rules may - (a) provide for the manner in which the identity of goods imported in different consignments which are ordinarily stored together in bulk, may be established; (b) specify the goods which shall be deemed to be not capable of being easily identified; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt to earn foreign exchange in lieu of such export. Since, in this case the licence fee was for right in India, the same cannot be realized in BRC as foreign exchange. Such non-realized amount cannot be claimed for export related benefit like drawback. 10. It is not the case that the original authority has not rejected whole drawback claim. He allowed drawback claim of Rs. 2,434.55 involved in 2 tapes. He rejected only drawback claim on value of licence fee by giving logical and proper reasoning and Government, concurs with the reasoning of original authority. 11. In view of above discussions, Government do not find infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals) and upholds the same. 12. Revision application is thus rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
