2014 (12) TMI 770 - CGOVT - Customs

Government Upholds Rejection of Delayed Revision Application for Customs Drawback

IN RE : UB GLOBAL

IN RE : UB GLOBAL - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 203 (G. O. I.) Issues:1. Delay in filing Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962.2. Rejection of supplementary claims for drawback by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals).3. Grounds for Revision Application filed by the applicant.4. Condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application.5. Eligibility of the applicant for drawback claim.Analysis:1. The Revision Application was filed with a delay of 28 days, beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 129DD(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant attributed the delay to confusion regarding whether to file an appeal before CESTAT or a Revision Application before the Central Government. The Government, exercising its powers under Section 129DD(2), condoned the delay and proceeded to consider the application on its merits.2. The applicants exported goods via two shipping bills and filed drawback claims through the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System. However, they failed to respond to queries raised by the department regarding the submission of necessary documents, leading to the rejection of their claims. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the supplementary claims as time-barred, as they were filed after a significant delay of more than 18 months. The Government noted that the applicants were aware of the rejection of their claims and the requirement to file supplementary claims within the stipulated time limit of 3 months. Additionally, the applicants attempted to conceal the rejection of their earlier claims and filed a fresh supplementary claim, indicating an improper motive to obtain illegitimate export benefits.3. The grounds for the Revision Application included arguments that the original claims were pending due to technical issues, the drawback amount was not credited, bank realization certificates were obtained, and the department should have sanctioned the drawback through cheque payment instead of relying on the EDI system. The applicant also sought condonation of the delay in filing the Revision Application due to the need to re-draft the appeal papers after realizing the correct authority for filing.4. The Government carefully reviewed the case records, including the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, to assess the eligibility of the applicant for the drawback claim. Despite the applicant's contentions, the Government found no merit in the arguments presented in the Revision Application. Consequently, the Revision Application was rejected for lacking merits.5. In conclusion, the Government upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revision Application, affirming the decision to deem the supplementary claims as time-barred and the applicant ineligible for the drawback claim.