TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mediate viz. 3-Amino Acetanilide 4-sulfonic Acid on reprocessing the goods which were imported vide B/E No. 10171 dated 25-4-1997 and 5595 dated 14-5-1997. The said consignment was re-exported under S/Bill No. 1000871298 dated 17-7-1997 against the claim of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 The drawback claim of the exporter under Section 74 vide said S/Bill dated 16-7-1997 was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs by an Order-in-Original No. S/10-678/97 DBK Sec. 74 dated 5-11-1997. Aggrieved by said order dated 5-11-1997, the exporter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, who vide order No. 122/99, MCH dated 31-3-1999 rejected the exporter s appeal by upholding the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1962. 2.3 The Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Department vide said letter dated 1-7-2002 had also directed the exporter to file appeal if not satisfied as there is no scope to consider the supplementary claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 1-7-2002, the exporter had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The appellate authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 4/2004 dated 20-1-2004 rejected the exporter s appeal on the grounds of delay. The exporter had filed a revision application before Revisionary Authority against the said Order-in-Appeal dated 20-1-2004. Revisionary Authority vide Order No. 575/04 dated 7-12-2004 remanded the matter to the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1962. Accordingly, 98% of ₹ 8,24,126/- i.e. ₹ 8,07,644/- was sanctioned to the appellant. The appellant, besides the above amount is claiming 98% of the recovered drawback of ₹ 1,33,845/- i.e. ₹ 1,30,667/-. Since the said claim is contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority has rejected the drawback claim of the appellant. Aggrieved of this, the appellant has filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who after due consideration of the submissions as made therein rejected the same thus upholding the views of the adjudicating authority. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts are still payable and collected as import duties. 3.6 The Board have vide Chapter 20 under C.B.E. C. s Customs Manual vide Paras 2 and 3 thereunder amply clarified with reference to re-imports and particularly Notification 94/96-Cus. that:- a. it is to be noted that under Section 12, on import, duties of Customs are leviable and no distinction is made whether the goods being imported had discharged duties earlier and they are being re-imported after exportation for particular purpose . b. when these are re-imported they attract and have to discharge the Customs duty leviable on the imported goods (as the duty is on the act of importation) . c. and these benefits should be recovered by way of duty . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 75 read with the 1995 Drawback Rules by the concerned Department i.e. the Export Department and applicants have not been allowed the opportunity of written reply and personal hearing nor any Adjudication Order has been issued, so far, by the Export Department for recovery of Drawback. 3.9 Finally the applicant while giving illustrative example has contended that although the original adjudicating authority agrees and mention the facts, provisions, particulars and factual meaning of the applicable Regulations, but appears to have deliberately confused and confounded the case just to pass a pro-revenue order which is bad in law. 4. The personal hearing scheduled in this case on 30-3-2010 was attended by Sh. S.V. Modi, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alify for fresh (present) drawback in terms of Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as being claimed by the applicant) or this is to be considered as recovery of drawback amount and not any duty paid (as held by the lower authorities herein). 8. In reference to above, Government is of the opinion that for deciding the issue, the simple and plain reading of the relevant statute are to be taken as such. Therefore text of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 is to be read by keeping the statute of Sections 12, 20 and 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the background. After giving a harmonious and complete reading to all the above, Government notes that the said notification exempts goods specified in Column (2) of the table, when re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
