TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt (Shed). The applicant cannot be penalized for failure of Superintendent (shed) to put up his report to AC for approval. As such, the condition of Section 74(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962 has to be treated as fulfilled, and drawback claim is admissible to the applicant, orders are set aside and case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to sanction the drawback claim if otherwise in order, revision application is thus disposed off - 375/69/DBK/2007-RA-Cus - 36/2010-Cus - Dated:- 19-2-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Mohan Lal, Advocate, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by the applicant M/s. Semi Conductor Complex, Ltd., Punjab (now re-named as Semi-Conductor Labora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 The observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous and not supported by any legal authority, as the goods have been allowed to be reexported by the proper officer under claim of duty Drawback under Section 74 only and hence, the applicant is entitled for the Drawback claim even if the Assistant Commissioner has not signed on the Shipping Bill. 3.2 Applicant has filed the Shipping Bill under Drawback claim before proper officer, which has been duly examined by Inspector and Superintendent (Shed) in the light of Export Invoice, Packing List and as per Bill of Entry No. 493773 dated 27-5-2003, which clearly shows that the identity of the goods has been established by the Customs department. It is also fact that cases of identity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Customs for doing the needful. Thus, it is submitted that for lapse of departmental officer s duty, the substantive right of the applicant should not be prejudiced. 3.5 The observation of Commissioner that allowing export under Section 51 of the Customs Act doesn t automatically entitled the exporter, the benefit of Section 74, is not correct as Section 74(1) specifically mentions about the clearance of the proper officer and loading of goods for exportation under Section 51 of the Customs Act and other conditions, which have duly been fulfilled by the applicant. 3.6 In exercise of the power conferred under Section 74 of the Customs Act, Central Government made the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 454 (Tribunal) (ii) Synthetic Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 92 (Tribunal) (iii) Shantilal Bhansali reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 558 (GOI) (iv) Bhavin International reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 249 (Coll. Appeals) (v) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Terai Overseas Ltd. reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 841 (Calcutta) (vi) Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. D.C. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) (vii) Gypsy Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 97 (Tribunal-Delhi) (viii) M. R. Jewellers v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 609 (Tribunal) (ix) Collector of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs (Export). The drawback claim stands rejected due to above deficiency thus not fulfilling the requirements of Section 74(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. In this case, Government specifically notes that the impugned Shipping Bill has clear mention as RE-EXPORT CASE further Shipping Bill for export of goods under claim DBK . In such situation Government gives due consideration to the ground of the revision application that the Supdt. of Customs (Export) should have marked it to the concerned Asstt. Commissioner of Customs so that clear clarification of Identifiability or otherwise of the impugned goods should have resulted. In such a situation, Government after keeping in view the cited judgments as in para 3(i) to 3(xii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
