2017 (8) TMI 809 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses petition challenging drawback claim rejection under 1995 Rules for non-compliance.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a drawback claim under the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) ... Claim of Duty Drawback - Period of limitation - The petitioner had exported goods which it had imported. The petitioner claims to have become entitled to duty drawback in terms of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 - Rule 5 and Rule 7A of such Rules - Held that: - Rule 5 deals with the manner and time of claiming drawback on goods exported other than by post. The goods of the petitioner comes within the purview of Rule 5 in terms of Rule 5(1). The petitioner was required to file a duty drawback claimed in the form at Annexure II of the Rules within three months from the date of the order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation under Section 51 - The claim contemplated under Rule 5 has to be accompanied by documents specified by under Rule 5(2). Rule 5(4) provides that, in the event there are incomplete particulars, the same is required to be returned to the claimant with a deficiency memo. In the present case, the application which is claimed to be an application for duty drawback is the bill of shipping itself. The bill of shipping does not quantify the rupee equivalent of the claim made by the petitioner. The claim is not made in Form of Annexure II of the Rules. The claim has not been lodged with the necessary documents as specified in Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1995. The petitioner did not made any representation to the Central Government for relaxation of any of the Rules. Therefore, the shipping bill itself cannot be construed to be an application for drawback within the meaning of Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1995 - I am not in a position to come to a finding that, the petitioner has made an application for duty drawback within the time prescribed. Since such is the finding, the question of the petitioner applying before an officer not authorised to do so does not arise. A Writ Court is not required to reappraise the entire evidence led before the revisional authority to come to a finding that, the appreciation of the materials placed before the revisional authority was incorrect. The petitioner has not alleged breach of principles of natural justice by the revisional authority in arriving at the impugned order. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate any perversity in the impugned order. There is no allegation of bias or mala fide against the revisional authority. Therefore, no case has been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues:Challenge to Government order rejecting drawback claim under Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995.Analysis:1. Claim for Drawback: The petitioner exported imported fertilizer to Bangladesh and claimed drawback. The claim was made in the bill of shipping, governed by the Rules of 1995. The petitioner argued that the claim was within the time frame of Rule 5, supported by relevant case laws.2. Department's Objection: The department contended that the claim did not comply with Rule 5 requirements, specifically the time period and necessary documents. They emphasized the absence of a representation for relaxation under Rule 7A.3. Court's Evaluation: The court analyzed Rule 5 and Rule 7A, emphasizing the need for timely filing and accompanying documents as per the Rules. The petitioner's claim in the bill of shipping did not meet Rule 5 criteria, lacking quantification and necessary documents.4. Decision Basis: The court found that the petitioner failed to submit a valid application for drawback within the prescribed time. The court distinguished cited cases due to differing factual contexts and absence of relaxation representation to the Central Government.5. Rule 7A Application: The court highlighted the requirement for a representation under Rule 7A for relaxation, which was not fulfilled by the petitioner. The court differentiated the present case from Funskool India Ltd., emphasizing the petitioner's failure to comply with Rule 5.6. Judicial Review: The court clarified that it does not reassess evidence before the revisional authority unless there are breaches of natural justice or perversity in the order. No bias or mala fide intentions were alleged against the revisional authority in this case.7. Final Verdict: The court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner failed to establish merit. No costs were awarded. The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory rules for claiming duty drawbacks and the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements.