2015 (10) TMI 2085 - HC - Customs

Recovery of drawback duty under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules IC Engines exported - Petitioner contends that claims were under Rule 6(1)(a) and All Industry Rates of drawback for products under heading 8408 are not fixed Goods if not eligible for drawback; order in original should not have been confirmed and authorities have erred in law - Held That - Respondent assessee made a statement that no All Industry Rate of drawback fixed or existing - Merely making one statement in application filed under Rule 6 will not mean that drawback amount was erroneously granted; no amount should be demanded - Order of revisional authority cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law; no material irregularity which could be termed as resulting in manifest injustice Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by revisional authority dismissing revision application for recovery of excess drawback duties of Customs.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the revisional authority's order confirming the appellate authority's findings regarding the recovery of excess drawback duties of Customs. The petitioner argued that the department rightly initiated proceedings to recover an amount claimed fraudulently. The petitioner faulted the respondent for providing incorrect particulars in the application, leading to the demand being confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner contended that the IC Engines exported were not eligible for drawback due to duty exemption scheme conditions. However, the petitioner claimed that the Order-in-Original should not have been confirmed, alleging errors by the appellate and revisional authorities.

Upon reviewing the writ petition and annexures, including the Order-in-Original, the appellate authority found no misdeclaration of value or suppression of material facts regarding the IC Engines exported. The appellate authority concluded that the department lacked information on duty saved under input-output ratio. The only allegation was the respondent's statement in the application under Rule 6 about the absence of an All Industry rate of drawback, which the appellate authority deemed insufficient to allege misrepresentation. The revisional authority confirmed these findings, emphasizing that the benefit of the drawback scheme should not be denied based solely on the application rule used, citing a government clarification supporting exporters' reimbursement of duties on inputs.

The revisional authority upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, noting no misdeclaration or suppression of material facts by the respondent. The revisional authority found the order justified in light of export promotion policies, concluding that no error of law or manifest injustice existed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded. Additionally, two weeks were granted for the respondent to file Vakalatnama.