9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as the 'assessee') imported watch parts for use in the manufacture of wrist watches. Import duty in the sum of Rs. 11,79,199/- was imposed. Assessee did not deposit the import duty in cash but made a debit in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short 'DEPB'). Some of the parts imported were found to be defective/unusable. Assessee applied for re-exporting the same which was allowed. After re-export, assessee filed a claim for duty drawback of Rs. 11,79,199/- under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the duty drawback claimed be not rejected on the ground that the goods were not easily identifiable. Reply to the show cause notice was given. 3. The authority- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok. For this reliance was placed by them upon the Public Notice No. 16 (RE.00)/1997-2000 dated 30-6-2000 wherein following paragraph 7.50A was inserted w.e.f. 30-6-2000 in the Hand Book (Vol. 1) (RE. 00) 1997-2000 which is reproduced below: "7.50A Re-export of goods imported under DEPB Scheme:- Goods imported under DEPB scheme, which are found defective or unfit for use, may be re-exported, as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Revenue. In such cases 98% of the credit amount debited against DEPB for the export of such goods, shall be generated by the concerned Commissioner of Customs in the form of a Certificate, containing the amount generated and the details of the original DEPB. Based on the Certificate, a fresh DEPB shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parts imported by the assessee were re-exported. Once the imported parts which were found to be defective/unusable are re-exported, assessee became entitled to either refund of the duty, if paid in cash or adjustment of the duty if paid by way of debit in DEPB book either by reversing the entry or by issuing a fresh DEPB book, as provided in the public notice dated 30-6-2000. Public Notice dated 30-6-2000 is procedural in nature and it does not make any substantive change in the policy. Procedural laws cannot be equated with substantive laws. Substantive laws are generally not retrospective unless specified to the contrary by the Legislature. Insofar as procedural laws are concerned, they may be retrospective unless shown to the contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
