2010 (2) TMI 934 - CGOVT - Customs

Drawback claim - revision application - applicant s claim for drawback was denied appellant submitted that 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 - Held that - identify of re-exported goods stands established with the goods imported vide relevant Bill of Entry as per examination report of Superintendent (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

Summary

Issues:
Claim for drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Denial of claim by jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Appeal rejected by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - Revision application filed challenging the legality of the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The applicant, M/s. Semi Conductor Complex Ltd., Punjab, filed a drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was denied by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The appeal against this decision was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

2. Grounds of Revision Application:
- Procedural Lapse: Applicant argued that the Assistant Commissioner's signature on the Shipping Bill was not mandatory for claiming drawback under Section 74.
- Established Identity: Applicant contended that the identity of the goods was established by the Customs department through examination reports, even though the Assistant Commissioner did not sign the Shipping Bill.
- Compliance with Rules: Applicant complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the "Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995," and the absence of the Assistant Commissioner's signature should not prejudice the applicant's rights.

3. Legal Arguments:
- Substantive Benefit vs. Procedural Lapse: Citing various judgments, the applicant argued that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to minor procedural lapses, and substantial compliance should be considered.
- Departmental Duty: Emphasized that the department should act as facilitators and not create hindrances in compliance with the law.

4. Government's Decision:
- Identification of Goods: Government noted that the impugned goods were examined and identified as per the import Bill of Entry, even though the Assistant Commissioner did not sign the Shipping Bill.
- Judgment Interpretation: Government considered the cited judgments and the principle that exporters' substantial rights should not be summarily denied due to procedural deficiencies.
- Decision: Government held that the applicant had a strong case, the identity of the re-exported goods was established, and the drawback claim was admissible. The impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for sanctioning the drawback claim.

5. Conclusion:
- The revision application was disposed of in favor of the applicant, emphasizing the importance of substantive compliance over minor procedural lapses.

6. Final Order: The impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further action.

End of Summary