Tribunal Denies Duty Drawback Appeal, Upholds Department Decision

The Tribunal rejected the appeal for duty drawback under Sec. 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, amounting to Rs. 72,715.62. The appellants failed to prove that there was no working demonstration of the imported equipment, as evidenced by documents and a brief working demonstration in Bombay. The Tribunal upheld the Department's decision based on Notification No. 19-Customs, emphasizing the actual use of the equipment and the timeline for eligibility, denying the full drawback amount claimed by the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Appeal for drawback of duty, Working demonstration of imported equipment, Criteria for duty drawback eligibility

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Sec. 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking a drawback of duty amounting to Rs. 72,715.62. The appeal was transferred to the Tribunal from the Government of India against the Order-in-appeal of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The appellants contended that the duty paid at the time of import should be refunded as there was no working demonstration of the imported equipment. However, the Appellate Collector rejected this claim, stating that there was a working demonstration. The Tribunal considered various documents submitted by the appellants, including letters and telegrams, to substantiate their position. The equipment exported included a Processor Camera, Reader Printer, Uniprinter, and Reader Printer. The appellants argued that even if there was a brief working demonstration in Bombay, the equipment was not used for most of the time, entitling them to the full drawback amount.

Regarding the criteria for duty drawback eligibility, the Department relied on Notification No. 19-Customs dated 6-2-1965, emphasizing the time elapsed between the import and export of the equipment and whether the equipment was used for static or working display. The Tribunal noted that as per the appellants' own admission in a letter, there was a working demonstration in Bombay, supported by the fact that some consumables were used. The Tribunal concluded that the equipment was indeed taken into use, meeting the criteria set out in the notification. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the Department's position on the eligibility for duty drawback based on the actual use of the equipment and the timeline specified in the notification.

---