9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and processed the Drawback claim after the order at page Nos. 56 to 62 was passed, the petitioners consternation could have been avoided. We are of the considered view that this petition is required to be allowed and respondents are therefore, directed to process the Drawback claim based upon the order at page Nos. 56 to 62 without any further delay and insistence upon rectifying the entry, as in our view it hardly matters, so far as clearance of Drawback claim is concerned. Petition allowed. - R/Special Civil Application No. 10826 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2019 - S.R. Brahmbhatt and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. Shri Amal Paresh Dave and Paresh M. Dave, for the Petitioner. Shri Ankit Shah, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Heard Learned Counsels for the parties. 2. As the issue involved in this petition was in a narrow compass, the Court called upon the counsels to make submissions for final disposal of the matter so as to obviate the intermediate steps of admitting and issuing Rule and avoiding unnecessary delay in final disposal of the matter. Thus, the Counsels were heard at length on merits of the matter. Hence, Rule. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce all industry rate of Drawback (which is admissible to all exporters) was not fixed for the goods in question, the petitioner company submitted two applications dated for fixation of brand rate of Drawback for the above referred exports made by them. 19-4-2013 : The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Rajkot passed an adjudication order and rejected the petitioners application for fixation of brand rate of Drawback mainly on the ground that either Drawback or Cenvat credit of Additional Customs duty was admissible, because the petitioners had paid such duties on the imported raw materials by utilizing DEPB Scrip, and not in cash. The petitioners Drawback claims were accordingly not considered. 11-7-2013, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the petitioners appeal against the above adjudication order and held that Drawback was admissible in respect of basic customs duty in cases like the present one and the rejection of the applications for brand rate fixation was incorrect. 9-10-2014 : The Revenue s Revision Application against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, who held that the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs sent a letter to the petitioner-company and informed them that the Deputy Commissioner (Exports) has rejected the petitioners request for amendment of shipping bill. 4-6-2018 21-6-2018 : The petitioners have submitted representations before the Principal Commissioner of Customs bringing to his notice the entire background of this case and also the judgment of this Hon ble Court pursuant to which brand rate of Drawback has been specifically determined for the exports made by the petitioners. The petitioners have requested the Principal Commissioner for his intervention for payment of Drawback claims. But, there is no response from the Customs authorities including the Principal Commissioner s office and the petitioners Drawback claims aggregating to ₹ 20,69,357/- are not paid by the respondent Customs authorities, though exports have been made 6 years back, i.e. during July, August and October, 2012. The respondents have been denying legitimate export benefits in petitioners favour for one or the other reason, and the petitioners are driven to litigate for securing their legitimate export benefits again and again. Export of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder different other schemes substantially stand on the same footing. Though as is bound to be, terms of each scheme are different. In case of VKGUY, the foreign policy provides for incentive with the objective to compensate high transport costs and offset other disadvantages to promote exports of various products specified therein which include the agricultural produce, minor forest produce, Gram Udyog products, forest based products, etc. In case of such exports, the incentive is made available in form of duty credit scrip at the rate of 5% of the FOB value of the exports. Like-wise, in case of FMS, it is provided that same is to offset high freight cost and other externalities to select international markets to enhance India s export competitiveness in these markets. Specified product exported to specified countries qualify for such benefits. Duty credit scrip at the specified rate of the FOB value of the exports would be provided. In case of FPS, the objective is to promote export of products which have high export intensity/employment potential so as to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and other associated costs involved in marketing of these products. In this scheme also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Petitions are disposed of. 6. Pursuant thereto, the authorities made orders, which have been placed on record in this petition from page Nos. 56 to 62. Passing of these aforesaid orders would clearly indicate that the claim was determined and admissibility thereof was accepted. Now, the claim was sought to be rejected on flimsy ground of not mentioning the correct scheme code and when petitioners approached the authority to overcome the hinge by way of seeking appropriate amendment in the shipping bill, the same was declined as not in consonance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, which was wholly incorrect, untenable and hence, the relief sought in this petition deserves to be granted. 7. Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the affidavit-in-reply contains specific averment and stand of the respondents that the mentioning of scheme code is essential and amendment in the shipping bill is strictly to be governed by Section 149 of the Customs Act and within time-limit stipulated thereunder. The authorities therefore, cannot be said to be incorrect in declining the application for seeking amendment and as the documents did not indicate correct scheme c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence is one of the ground or eventuality, in which, the amendment in the shipping bill could be effected. (v) The orders placed on record at page Nos. 56 to 62, pertain to final rendering of admissibility of the Drawback, as Competent Authority clearly stated in those orders that the said orders were rendered on the basis of furnished documents duly verified, entitling the petitioner to seek and receive Drawback as claimed. (vi) The petitioners were therefore, strictly speaking, not require to seek any amendment in the bill, however, as they have averred in the petition that they were informed orally about the snag in finally paying the Drawback, they put up the application, which came to be rejected. 9. Against the aforesaid backdrops, the Court is examining the submissions of the counsels for the parties. 10. The Court did not elaborately dwell upon their contention qua the effect of incorrect mentioning of scheme code, as in the instant case, according to us, the same was wholly uncalled for. The respondent department could not have resurrected such a ground for denying the Drawback claim when the order at page Nos. 56 to 62 were pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
