TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce any evidence to establish that they had not used these goods prior to re-export thereof. However, no such objection had been raised earlier by the original sanctioning authority and instead the drawback amount had been granted on being satisfied about the admissibility of drawback of duty to the applicant. The reason for re-examining this issue later on is not revealed in the order-in-original and if the respondent had any doubt regarding use of the imported goods before re-exporting the same the onus was on the Revenue authorities to establish that the imported goods were not re-exported as such. But no such evidence has been mentioned in both order-in-original as well as order-in-appeal. Instead, the entire case has been decided at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DBK), ICD, Ludhiana. However, subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the applicant for recovery of duty drawback of ₹ 3,46,711/- along with interest under Rule 7 of the Re-Export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, on the ground that the applicant had not produced any evidence that the imported goods had not been used after importation and before re-export. 3. The revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that they had re-exported the imported goods after few days of importation, the padlocks are used by customers for years and it was not possible that 7.5 lakh locks could be re-exported by the applicant after collecting from so many cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original and if the respondent had any doubt regarding use of the imported goods before re-exporting the same the onus was on the Revenue authorities to establish that the imported goods were not re-exported as such. But no such evidence has been mentioned in both order-in-original as well as order-in-appeal. Instead, the entire case has been decided at the lower level on the ground that the applicant could not produce any evidence to prove that the imported goods were not used by them prior to re-export thereof. It is not explained as to how any evidence regarding non-use of the imported goods could be produced by the applicant after re-exporting the goods. The doubt of the Revenue authorities regarding use of the padlocks is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
