9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for re-export of imported Oil Well Equipment after completion of the project in India. The concerned appraising officers raised objection about the identity of goods. The exporters submitted their explanation on several occasions through letters as well as in person w.r.t. the import documents but the officers refused to accept that goods were actually those which were imported earlier for the Oil exploration project. A SCN dated 12.04.2011 was issued to the exporters and adjudicated by Learned Commissioner of Customs (Export) vide OIO dated 19.01.2012 held that the identity of the goods re-exported was not established vis-à-vis corresponding import documents and (i). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be re-exported by against bond in compliance with the CESTAT's interim Order dated 10.07.2012. Customs have allowed re-export on 8-2-2013 and the goods were re-exported on 13.4.2013. Thereafter, Drawback claim was filed with Customs on 24.06.2013 within the statutory time limited. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have received a Deficiency Memo from Customs drawback department on 17.09.2013. When the goods were allowed for re-export in February 2013, the concerned office has put a remark that "S/bill assessed provisionally as per DC(X) Order vide file No. S/6-Gen-892/2012(X)DNode dated 29.03.2013 pending for re-export time limit to be decided by CESTAT. Counsel submits that the concerned officers are not in a pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being eligible for drawback under Section 74 on the part of the exporters. 3.2. Learned Counsel further submits that on account of prolonged detention as a result of customs procedures, adjudication, appeal before CESTAT, re-examination by experts etc., a large quantity of equipment worth Rs. 66.35 lakhs as per the details appended to appellants' letter dated 29.08.2012 to the Manager DRT CFS, were found pilfered from the total consignment brought for export against six shipping bills as far back as on 06.12.2010. This is indeed an irreparable loss to the exporters as the custodians of the goods are expressing their inability to restore the pilfered goods to the exporters. He submits that in view of the above, the exporters' claim at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Drawback Section on 24.06.2013 which is within time limit as prescribed under Rule 5 of Re-export of imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules 1995. 5. We find that the Learned Commissioner observed that parts of the distinctive / declared marks or numbers have been scrapped by machining and fresh numbers have been chiseled, engraved or embossed on it; differential wear and tear is not explainable; the Appellants contention that such tools are used under extreme geographic condition and the markings embossed on them got washed away and hence Sr. No. of such tools were chiseled manually on them for identification purpose was not accepted by the Commissioner. On an appeal filed by the Appellants the Tribunal vide order dated 10.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods re-exported is settled in the appellants favour. 6. Department has raised the issue of time limit for the filing of drawback shipping Bills. We find that originally both the Appellants have filed seven numbers of shipping bills on 01.12.2010. Only due to some issues regarding the identification of the goods, on the basis of marks and numbers, with the imported goods the Show Cause Notice was issued and was confirmed by the Commissioner holding as detailed above. We find that Tribunal has directed vide order dated 10.07.2012, CESTAT directed to obtain the opinion of an expert. Goods were allowed to be re-exported by customs on 08.02.2013 and were exported on 13.04.2013. The Department contends that imports were made during July to Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Having initiated such a litigation department cannot hold that as the LEO was issued on 29.03.2013 the re-export is beyond the period of two years. We find that in fact the Appellants have lost some goods due to pilferage at the CFS in the bargain. At this juncture not denying them the benefit of drawback at least on the part of the goods that were exported would be grave injustice to the appellants and is not maintainable. It is a settled principle of law that while computing the limitation time taken for litigation should be excluded. In view of the same, we find that he Appellants cannot be put to jeopardy due to the objections raised by the department which to a greater extent got nullified by the report of Intertek, the exports app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
