9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, stores and cargo were later salvaged. The appellants had applied for drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act in respect of the ply wood panels. The same was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 25-10-1980 on the ground that there had been no export of the goods as defined in Section 2(18) of the Customs Act. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta under his order dated 12-2-1981. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government against the said order. The same, on transfer, is now before us as this deemed appeal. 2. We have heard Shri G.C. Goho, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar for the Department. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof in 1983. 5. But we find that this issue is fully covered by a decision of the Madras High Court (though the same was not cited before us during the hearing) in the case of Lucas TVS v. Assistant Collector [1987 (28) E.L.T. 266]. It may be noted that in the said case drawback was claimed with reference to goods loaded on a vessel but which goods were partly damaged and partly destroyed even before the ship sailed. The drawback claim was with reference to goods so loaded on the ship. The Madras High Court held that so far as drawback is concerned the exporter becomes entitled to the same the moment the goods are loaded on ship on completion of the presented "formalities (and duty in connection therewith is paid). The High Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al representative's contention was that there must be proof that the goods had reached a place outside India, that is, they should have reached a country outside India and that the mere fact that of the ship having proceeded beyond the territorial waters would not be sufficient. 9. In this connection, it is observed that the question, though in a somewhat different context came up before the West Regional Bench of this Tribunal in Colourchem Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 402. Briefly stated, the facts were that the appellants had shipped certain goods and the carrying vessel had reached the port of destination. However, the goods were not unloaded at the port of destination and there was no knowing what happ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
