2010 (9) TMI 885 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application - drawback claim Held that - export-respondent cannot deprived of the substantial monetary benefit for some lapse on the part of Custom Officer. Since Assistant Commissioner (Drawback) has satisfied himself on the basis of relevant document about the identity of re-export goods in terms of Section 74 of Customs Act 1962 so the drawback claim was rightly allowed by the lower authorities under Section 74 revision application is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Claim of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 sanctioned erroneously due to lack of establishment of goods' identity to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner. Interpretation of Section 74 regarding identification of goods. Dispute over the authority responsible for establishing the identity of goods under Section 74. Validity of the order-in-appeal rejecting the department's appeal against the sanctioning of the drawback claim.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application filed by the Commissioner of Custom, Air Cargo Export, challenging the order-in-appeal and order-in-original regarding a drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The party claimed to have imported Readymade Garments, paid duty, and re-exported the goods. However, the identity of the goods was not established to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, leading to a demand for the drawback amount already paid. The Assistant Commissioner (DBK) dropped the demand, which was contested through an appeal by the department.

The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 74, specifically regarding the establishment of goods' identity to claim drawback. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal, emphasizing that the authority under Section 74 is the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner Drawback, and the identification of goods should satisfy them. The department argued that the identity should be established by the Assistant Commissioner (Export Shed) during examination, which was not done in this case.

The Central Government, after reviewing the case records and orders, agreed with the Commissioner (Appeal) that the identity of goods was established based on the examination report on the Shipping Bill. The government noted that the Assistant Commissioner (Drawback) had correctly assessed the identity of the re-exported goods as per Section 74. The failure of the Custom Superintendent to submit the relevant file for counter-signature did not invalidate the claim, as the identity was confirmed through documents. The government upheld the order-in-appeal, stating that the respondent should not be penalized for the lapse of a Custom Officer.

Ultimately, the revision application was rejected for lacking merit, and the order-in-appeal was upheld, confirming the validity of the drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.