9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 value taken for the purpose of claiming drawback (DBK) was the purchase price of fabrics in India. That Adjudicating authority has rejected their DBK claim due to the fact that export of fabrics to Bangladesh does not involve sales and no foreign exchange remittances have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted 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 garments when sale proceeds are received by the Appellant from third country from the buyer of the garments. The DBK is claimed on the value of the fabrics exported and not on the amount realized for the garments. Adjudicating authority has mainly rejected the claim on two grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue 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 of the case it can not be said that proceeds of the fabrics exported have not been realized and accordingly it is held that provisions of Rule 16A of the DBK Rules are not attracted. 6. So far as the argument of the Revenue at Para 4(ii) above is concerned Appellant has produced certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
