TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government rejects Revision Application on drawback claim timing, citing Customs Act over Foreign Trade Policy.</h1> <h3>IN RE : STROYTRANSGAZ</h3> IN RE : STROYTRANSGAZ - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 143 (G.O.I.) Issues:1. Drawback claim rejection based on re-export timing.2. Application of Notification No. 23/2008-Cus. retrospectively.3. Doctrine of promissory estoppel application.4. Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy (F.T.P.) to Customs Act.5. Legal framework governing drawback claims.6. Relevance of case laws in the current case.Issue 1: Drawback claim rejection based on re-export timingThe case involves the rejection of a drawback claim by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (DBK) due to the re-export of imported goods after 18 months, contrary to the provisions of Notification No. 23/2008-Cus. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to a Revision Application filed by the applicant. The applicant argued that the re-export was delayed due to project completion expectations within 18 to 24 months, as per Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 2: Application of Notification No. 23/2008-Cus. retrospectivelyThe applicant contended that the amendments made under Notification No. 23/2008-Cus. should not be applied retroactively to goods imported prior to its issuance. However, the government observed that the notification was applicable at the time of re-export and determined the rate of drawback based on the duration of use and relevant circumstances.Issue 3: Doctrine of promissory estoppel applicationThe applicant invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that changes in the policy framework should not disadvantage importers who relied on previous promises. The government, however, found no legal basis to apply this doctrine in the current case, as the amendments were made within the legal framework of the Customs Act.Issue 4: Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy (F.T.P.) to Customs ActThe applicant claimed that their drawback claim was admissible under Chapter 1A of the Foreign Trade Policy (F.T.P.) 2004-2009. However, the government clarified that the legal framework of the F.T.P. does not automatically apply to the Customs Act provisions governing drawback claims.Issue 5: Legal framework governing drawback claimsThe government highlighted Section 74(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers the Central Government to fix drawback rates based on various factors. The amendments in Notification No. 23/2008-Cus. regulated the drawback rates applicable at the time of re-export, determining the admissibility of the applicant's claim.Issue 6: Relevance of case laws in the current caseThe applicant cited various case laws to support their arguments, emphasizing the application of principles like promissory estoppel. However, the government found that the facts of those cases were distinct from the current scenario, making the application of those judgments irrelevant.In conclusion, the Revision Application was rejected by the government, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the rejection of the drawback claim based on the timing of re-export and the applicability of Notification No. 23/2008-Cus. on the case. The legal framework of the Customs Act governed the admissibility of the claim, and the application of the F.T.P. provisions was deemed inapplicable.
TaxTMI 