Drawback claim survives shipping bill omission where export intention is clear and EPCG does not bar simultaneous benefit.

Under the EPCG scheme, simultaneous drawback on exported goods was not barred, and a shipping bill omission could be treated as a clerical lapse where export records and departmental supervision showed a clear intention to claim drawback. Because the invoices were countersigned and the goods were factory stuffed under supervision, the absence of the drawback declaration did not defeat the claim. The conversion of EPCG shipping bills into EPCG-cum-drawback shipping bills therefore could not be refused, and drawback at the All Industry Rate was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether EPCG shipping bills could be converted into EPCG cum drawback shipping bills and whether the appellant was entitled to the All Industry Rate of Drawback despite omission of the drawback declaration in the shipping bills.

Analysis: The export was made under the EPCG scheme, which permits duty-free import of capital goods and does not bar simultaneous drawback on the exported goods. The goods were factory stuffed under departmental supervision and the export invoices were countersigned by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers, indicating that the intention to claim drawback was clear. The omission of the DBK declaration in the shipping bills was treated as a clerical lapse attributable to the CHA and not a substantive bar to the claim. The authority also relied on the settled line of decisions and the relevant circulars supporting conversion and grant of drawback in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The request for conversion could not be rejected, and the appellant was entitled to the drawback benefit claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in the shipping bill does not defeat drawback where the export intention is otherwise evident and the scheme does not prohibit simultaneous drawback.

---