TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Department. Further, we find that the appellant also paid an amount of ₹ 13,81,543/- as demanded by the Department. Further, it is found that after payment of the duty along with interest, the appellant sought suitable amendment to the re-exported shipping documents to enable the appellant to claim drawback in terms of Section 74 but the same was not considered and his request was rejected without affording him an opportunity of hearing which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Also, it is substantive right of the exporter to claim drawback and it has been consistently held by various High Courts that substantive right should not be denied on account of procedural irregularities. CBEC issued Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Bill of Entry No. 7578327 dated 24.11.2016 in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995 without payment of duties, but executing appropriate Bond with the Bank Guarantee, with an undertaking to re-export the same after curing quality defects. Thereafter, the appellant have re-exported the said goods after addressing the quality issues. Thereafter, the appellant requested the Department to cancel their RE bond and return the corresponding Bank Guarantee as the appellant have discharged the obligation thereunder. While processing the request of the appellant, the Customs Department found that a part of the re-export was affected few days after the permissible period and hence, informed them to pay applicable import duties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctifying the quality problems and the same is not in dispute. He further submitted that while processing the request of the appellant for discharge and release of Bank Guarantee, the Department found that a quantity of 250 Kg out of 1750 Kg was re-exported after the period of one year and hence the appellant has violated the conditions set out in the said Notification No. 158/95 dated 14.11.1995. He further submitted that on the asking of the Department, the appellant paid an amount of ₹ 13,81,543/- which consists of import duty of ₹ 10,96,558/- and interest amount of ₹ 2,84,985/-. He further submitted that it is a case that the re-imported goods have suffered duty in affect and the same have been re-exported after process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the appellant initially exported Phycocyanin and a part quantity of the same was rejected for quality reasons which was re-imported by him without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995 on executing Bond with Bank Guarantee. We also find that the appellant have re-exported the said goods after rectifying the defect and the identification of the re-exported goods is not disputed by the Department. Further, we find that the appellant also paid an amount of ₹ 13,81,543/- as demanded by the Department. Further, we find that after payment of the duty along with interest, the appellant sought suitable amendment to the re-ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
