2010 (11) TMI 929 - CGOVT - Customs

Customs Commissioner's Revision Application Dismissed for Lack of Merit Upholding Drawback Claim on Re-exported Goods

The revision application filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the rejection of a drawback claim on re-exported goods was dismissed for lacking ... - Issues:Claim of drawback on re-export of goods under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The case involves a revision application filed by the Commissioner of Customs against an order-in-appeal regarding the rejection of a drawback claim on re-exported goods. The goods, imported by M/s. Krishna Enterprises, were re-exported under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, but the drawback claim was denied due to the alleged failure to establish the identity of the re-exported goods with the imported ones.The Commissioner contended that the order-in-appeal allowing the drawback on re-export was contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 74 requires that goods capable of being easily identified, upon which duty has been paid, are eligible for a drawback upon re-exportation. The Assistant Commissioner's report highlighted that only the stickers on the drums matched the Bill of Entry, not the contents, leading to the denial of the drawback claim.A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent under relevant customs and excise acts, but no counter reply was filed. During the personal hearing, the respondent's representative argued in favor of upholding the order-in-appeal as legal and proper.Upon reviewing the case records and orders, the Government noted that the examination report confirmed the presence of stickers matching the Bill of Entry but failed to establish the identity of the contents of the drums. However, the Shipping Bill declared the goods as 'in original packing and not used in India,' a statement undisputed by the department. Consequently, the Government agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the identity of the goods was established, leading to the upholding of the order-in-appeal.Ultimately, the revision application was dismissed for lacking merit, and the impugned order-in-appeal was upheld.