TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 49/96-Cus. (N.T.), the claim is not eligible under All Industry Drawback Rate, Revision Application thus rejected being devoid of merits. - 372/111/DBK/2007-RA - 203/2010-Cus., - Dated:- 24-5-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. [Order]. This Revision Application has been filed by the applicant M/s. Safa Marine Industries Ltd., Kolkata against Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/Cus/CKP-113/2007, dated 28-3-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Kolkata in the matter arising out of Order-in-Original No. 7/2006, dated 22-11-06 as passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback) Custom House, Kolkata. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant exported Monofilament Fishing Net vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... baneswar as their certificate enclosed. 3.2 As the exporter was exporting for the first time they were not conversant with the drawback formalities and so made some procedural mistake regarding declaration of sub-serial no. of drawback schedule, which resulted in delay in fixation of correct rate of drawback for the subject goods. As, there is no dispute that the subject goods had been exported out of India and the relevant sale proceed in foreign exchange have been realized from Public Sector Bank i.e. SBI and so substantiating the substantial compliance of the relevant Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, there claim should have been liberally considered as per Hon ble Court judgments after fixation of drawback rate under the Drawback R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of Drawback is liable for rejection. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) also held that this act of claiming All Industry Rate of Drawback on the part of the applicant is entirely an act of after thought for availing improper and illegal (drawback) benefit, and hence rejected the appeal. 8. In the above factual back ground Government notes that the applicant herein is totally relying on the below mentioned two points i.e. :- (a) The goods have been actually exported and sale proceeds stands realized through S.B.I. (b) they being 1st times exports, made some procedural mistake of declarations their above substantial benefit under relevant Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 be liberally considered. 9. In reference to above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lizers Ltd. case [1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.)] that distinction to be made between a procedural condition of technical nature and a substantive condition-Non observing-of former is condonable while that of latter not condonable as the same is likely to fascilitate commission of fraud and introduce the administrative inconvenience. Government, thus is of the view that only those procedural infirmities which could be cured by permitting appropriate rectifications by way of such permissions can only be treated as procedural/technical in nature. It is not applicable to those condition/requirements which other wise leads to specific consequences. Government holds that wrong and changed declarations/claims of different heads of schedule of releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
