TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable on the date of re-export - As per Notification 23/2008-Cus. goods cleared for re-export after 18 months of their import into India attract nil rate of drawback and as such no drawback can be allowed. Applicability of Chapter 1A of Foreign Trade Policy (F.T.P.) 2004-2009 - Held that:- drawback is a export promotion scheme, which specifically governed under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and rules/notifications issued thereunder. As such, legal framework of FTP cannot be automatically made applicable to provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover the said legal framework of FTP Policy para 1.4 Chapter 1A, refers to notifications or public notices issued by DGFT - Therefore, there is no infirmity in order in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 4.1 The respondent has failed to take into account the submissions made by the applicants and has arbitrarily passed the impugned order dated 14-3-2012 without considering the merits of the case. The goods covered under 16 Shipping Bills were imported by the applicants in relation to the construction of East Pipeline Project in India and to be Re-exported back to the consigner under claim of drawback in terms of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the said machines were imported in India, the applicants had expected to complete the entire project within 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its ambit the Customs related procedure as well, which is an integral part of India s foreign trade. As such, the applicant submits that the principles laid down in the Transitional Arrangement of the Foreign Trade Policy should also be applied to the Notification No. 23/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008 and the amendments made vide this notification should be applied to goods imported after 1-3-2008 and not to the imports made prior to this date, as in the instant case. 4.3 It was well settled law that doctrine of promissory estoppels would apply in case the exemption notification withdrawn as being unreasonable and arbitrary. In the applicants case, when the goods were imported for jobbing and subsequent re-export, under Notification No. 19/6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Application. Nobody attended hereby on behalf of the respondent-department. The respondent department vide their written submission dated 17-12-2012 mainly reiterated contents of impugned orders. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the applicant imported old and used machinery and equipment/accessories/spare parts on re-export basis. The applicant re-exported the goods after 19 to 23 months and filed claim of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority held that the applicant re-exported the goods after a period of 18 months contrary to provisions of Notification No. 23/2008 dated 1- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 19-Customs, dated the 6th February, 1965, which was published in the Gazette of India vide S.O. 426 of the same date, namely :- In the said notification,- (i) In the preamble, for the word, brackets and number column (2) , the word, brackets and number column (3) shall be substituted; (ii) for the TABLE, the following TABLE shall be substituted, namely :- S. No. Length of period between the date of clearance for home consumption and the date when the goods are placed under Customs control for export Percentage of import duty to be paid as Drawback (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2-1965 was issued fixing up of different rate of drawback for different duration of use and depreciation in value. The many subsequent amendment in the said principal Notification No. 19/65-Cus. vide Notification 154-Cus., dated 8-11-1969 Notification No. 45-Cus., dated 2-5-1970 so on and so forth. In the year 2008, the last amendment in principal Notification No. 19/65-Cus., dated 6-2-1965 was made vide Notification No. 23/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008. Hence, the Notification No. 23/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008 came into existence after amending in principal Notification No. 19/65-Cus. At the time of export only one notification was in existence i.e. 23/2008-Cus, dated 1-3-2008 which in force. The drawback of duty on said re-exported goods can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
