2006 (11) TMI 374 - AT - Customs

Tribunal enforces duty drawback recovery, stresses timely compliance with revenue rules

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 151 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved: Recovery of drawback u/s 16 and 16A of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules read with Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, directing the recovery of drawback amounts from two appellants, M/s. Malvika Apparels and M/s. Handloom Only. The recovery was ordered under Rules 16 and 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, along with Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, with interest also to be recovered. The appeals were based on the delay in realization of sale proceeds for exported goods.The appellants argued that they had realized a portion of the export proceeds within the extended time period, but certain amounts ordered to be recovered had not been paid to them. They contended that the customs authorities initiated recovery proceedings without waiting for an extension order from the Reserve Bank of India, as required by Rule 16A(2). They cited legal precedents to support their argument regarding the entitlement to time extensions for fulfilling export obligations.The Department's Authorized Representative emphasized that the recovery of drawback was justified as the sale proceeds for the exported goods were not realized within the prescribed time period. They argued that the provisions under Rule 16A did not apply in this case since no drawback amount had been paid by the exporter to the department. The focus was on the importance of timely realization of sale proceeds for safeguarding revenue interests.After hearing both sides and examining the case record, the Tribunal noted the significance of timely realization of sale proceeds under Section 75 of the Customs Act and Rule 16A of the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal highlighted the consequences of non-realization and the mechanisms in place to protect revenue interests. It was observed that failure to receive sale proceeds within the specified time could lead to recovery of erroneously paid drawbacks under the relevant provisions.Regarding the argument that proceedings were not initiated based on information from the Reserve Bank of India as required by Rule 16A(2), the Tribunal found this contention raised for the first time during the appeal and not before the lower authorities. Considering the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed the appellants to make pre-deposits to continue their appeals, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the law and procedural requirements.In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the appellants to make specific pre-deposits within a stipulated time frame, failing which their appeals would stand dismissed. The pre-deposit amounts were set to ensure compliance with the impugned order while allowing for the waiver of the remaining amounts during the appeal process. The Tribunal scheduled a compliance report date for the appellants to adhere to the pre-deposit requirements.