Government affirms denial of duty drawback claim on re-exported goods under Customs Act 1962

The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reject the duty drawback claim on re-exported goods under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant's claim was denied as no cash duty was paid during importation, with duty being debited through a DEPB license. The applicant's argument citing Notification No. 75/2000 and Rule 5 was dismissed, emphasizing that DEPB credit does not equate to cash duty payment. The final decision affirmed the rejection of the claim, with the applicant entitled to credit in DEPB scrip only.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for duty drawback on re-export of imported goods under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case:
The applicant, a merchant-exporter, filed a duty drawback claim for re-export under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 for self-adhesive film imported earlier. The goods were found unsuitable for consumption and required re-export. The claim was examined, and it was noted that duty was paid by debiting the DEPB license during importation. The applicant filed a DEPB Shipping Bill for re-export, but no customs duty was paid in cash.

2. Grounds for Rejection:
The authorities rejected the drawback claim, stating that since no duty was paid in cash during importation (goods were imported through DEPB license), the applicant was not entitled to the drawback amount. The applicant appealed, arguing that Notification No. 75/2000 and Rule 5 of Re-export of Imported Goods Rules allow re-export even if duty is debited through DEPB license.

3. Legal Provisions and Circulars:
The applicant cited Section 76, which states that no drawback is allowed if the market price of the goods is less than the amount of drawback claimed. Circular No. 75/2000 clarified that debiting duty against DEPB credit scrip is considered as duty paid in cash. The notification issued under Section 74(2) is for goods imported, put to use, and then re-exported, not applicable to the present case.

4. Government's Decision:
The Government reviewed the case records and orders-in-original and appeal. It was noted that the goods were re-exported under a DEPB Shipping Bill, and the duty claimed was paid through DEPB Scrip. As per FTP 2004-09 and Circular 75/2000, DEPB credit is admissible subject to conditions, and no cash duty was paid during importation. Therefore, the claim for duty drawback was rejected as no cash duty was paid, and the applicant would receive credit in DEPB scrip only.

5. Final Decision:
The Government upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as legal and proper. The revision application was deemed devoid of merit and rejected. The judgment concluded by ordering the same.

---