9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of DBK where sale proceeds are not realized. At the same time Rule 12(1)(b) and Rule 13(2)(i) also indicate that export of goods need not always be on a sale invoice or a Letter of Credit (LC). The above provisions convey that goods could be exported without a sale. The sale proceeds of the finished garments are received from the third country buyer and is received by the appellant directly from the garment purchaser which is more than the value of fabrics at which drawback is claimed. In the present case the products meant to realize foreign exchange are the 'garments' which are manufactured through job-workers in Bangladesh. The pattern of sale has been made clear by the exporter at the time of exports. Under the existing factual m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst Order-in-Original No.4/CUS/CC(P)/WB/2010 dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), W.B. Kolkata, as Adjudicating authority, under which a drawback of ₹ 9,68,705/- of the Appellant was disallowed and a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was imposed upon the appellant under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri K.K.Sanyal (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the period of dispute is 2006-07 during which Appellant exported fabrics under 26 Bills of Export to Bangladesh to perform the job of CMT (Cutting/Making/Trimming) to make finished garments exported directly to Europe (Third Country) from Bangladesh. That payments were received for the garments directly by the Appellant. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bangladesh and no foreign exchange is received for fabrics exported to job-workers. That the certificate produced by the Appellant regarding non-registration of supporting manufacturers were not produced during the course of investigation. That amount of foreign exchange remitted to the Appellant and the description of goods as per LC are different than the goods and value sent to job-workers by the Appellant. Learned AR thus strongly defended the Order-in-Original dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceeding is whether Appellant is eligible to DBK on fabrics exported to job-workers in Bangladesh and finally sent to third country as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant without getting anything. Therefore, the sale proceeds received by the Appellant from the third country buyer, representing sale proceeds of garments, will also include the proportionate price of the fabric used in the manufacture of garments. It is not the case of the Revenue that Appellant has claimed more DBK on a value which is more than the price of the fabrics exported. The basic principle of DBK like incentive schemes is to have zero rate of duty on exported goods. In the present case the products meant to realize foreign exchange are the garments which are manufactured through job-workers in Bangladesh. The pattern of sale has been made clear by the exporter at the time of exports. Under the existing factual matrix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
