TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of importation when there was substantive non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - revision application allowed. - F.No. 380/66/DBK/2013-RA - 27/2015-CUS - Dated:- 15-10-2015 - Ms. Rimjhim Prasad, Joint Secretary Ms. Priya Gulliya, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by Commissioner of Customs, Import General, New Customs House, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/AIR/21/2013, dated 22-1-2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), NCH, New Delhi with respect to Order-in-Original No. 04/2012, dated 26-4-2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund), IGI Airport, New Delhi in the case of Shri Sanjay Chadha (hereinafter referred to as the passenger). 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Sanjay Chadha, Country Head, India S5 Security Systems Pvt. Ltd, 59/15, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi arrived into India from New York by Flight No. CO-022, dated 29-5-2011. He brought certain security items like I.P. Video Camera, New Work Video Server, Explosives Detector valued at S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) erred in allowing refund/drawback of the duty paid by the passenger at the time of importation when there was substantive non-compliance with the provisions of Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 under which the claim was filed and processed. That the passenger did not make any declaration with the declared intention of claiming refund under Section 74 ibid. That the above two conditions were not fulfilled at the time of export of the said goods. That no order was issued by the proper officer permitting the clearance of the goods for exportation. That the goods meant for export were not identified to the satisfaction of AC/DC of Customs as the goods which were imported. 4.2 That the requirement that goods have to be established to the satisfaction of AC/DC cannot be treated as mere procedural requirement as the critical requirement for eligibility to drawback under Section 74 is establishment of identity of goods exported. That the condition for filing of proper declaration under Section 74 and making of an order permitting exportation are also substantive requirements. That these provisions are stipulated to ensure that there is no misuse of the drawback facility. That non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant on 20-2-2013 while the revision application was filed on 27-5-2013, i.e. after a delay of 5 days. The Department filed this revision application in 5 days after initial 90 days period, which falls within condonable limit of 90 days. Hence, Government condones the said delay and proceeds to examine the case on merits. 9. On perusal of case records, Government observes that the passenger, arrived into India from New York by Flight No. CO-022, dated 29-5-2011. He brought certain security items like I.P. Video Camera, New Work Video Server, Explosives Detector valued at ₹ 10,29,550/- for exhibition at Bangalore. The goods were seized being commercial in nature. The case was adjudicated vide Order No. 31/2011 dated 1-6-2011. Value of the goods were assessed to ₹ 10,99,350/- attracting Customs Duty of ₹ 3,84,773/-, Cess of ₹ 11,543/-. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- and personal penalty of ₹ 25,000/-. The duty, cess, redemption fine and personal penalty were deposited by the passenger vide BR No. 2254, dated 1-6-2011. The passenger departed from India on 7-9-2011 by Flight No. BA-0256. While leaving Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es an order permitting such export and the goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner as those which were imported. 11. Government notes that it is an undisputed fact that the passenger Shri Sanjay Chadha has not followed the requirements of law as laid down under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the extent that no declaration under Section 77 was made by the respondent nor any order permitting the clearance of the goods for exportation, by the proper officer was issued. Neither were the goods exported identified to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Customs as the goods which were imported. In this regard Government notes that these are substantive requirements of law and have been stipulated to ensure that there is no misuse of the drawback facility. Non-compliance of these provisions will disentitle the respondent to any benefit of drawback. 11.1 It is in this spirit and this background that Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sharif-ud-Din, Abdul Gani [AIR 1980 SC 3403] has observed that distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
