Post-repeal drawback notice invalid where saving clause did not preserve recovery power or post-export value reassessment.

A post-repeal show cause notice could not validly invoke Rule 16 of the 1995 Drawback Rules because Rule 20(2) of the 2017 Rules saved only limited accrued rights and did not preserve such action. The 1995 Drawback Rules also lacked an independent mechanism to demand and recover drawback already disbursed, so the recovery demand was unsustainable. Once export was complete and drawback had been released, the authorities had no power to reopen and reassess the FOB value of the goods merely on the basis of the impugned notice. The notice was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a show cause notice issued after repeal of the 1995 Drawback Rules could validly invoke Rule 16 of those Rules in view of the saving provision in the 2017 Rules; (ii) whether the 1995 Drawback Rules contained a mechanism to demand and recover drawback already disbursed; and (iii) whether the authorities could reassess the FOB value of goods after export.

Issue (i): Whether a show cause notice issued after repeal of the 1995 Drawback Rules could validly invoke Rule 16 of those Rules in view of the saving provision in the 2017 Rules.

Analysis: Rule 20(2) of the 2017 Drawback Rules preserved only limited rights and actions accrued under the earlier regime. A notice issued after the repeal could not be sustained by invoking Rule 16 of the 1995 Rules when the saving clause did not keep alive such post-repeal action.

Conclusion: The notice could not validly invoke Rule 16 of the 1995 Drawback Rules after their repeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the 1995 Drawback Rules contained a mechanism to demand and recover drawback already disbursed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the 1995 Drawback Rules did not provide an independent machinery for raising a demand for recovery of drawback already released. In the absence of such machinery, a demand could not be sustained under Rule 16.

Conclusion: No sustainable mechanism existed under the 1995 Drawback Rules for the impugned demand and recovery.

Issue (iii): Whether the authorities could reassess the FOB value of goods after export.

Analysis: Once goods had been exported and the export process had culminated in acceptance of the shipping bills and release of drawback, the authorities had no power to reopen and reassess the value of those exported goods merely on the basis of the impugned notice.

Conclusion: The authorities had no power to reassess the value of goods already exported.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice was unsustainable and was quashed, with the writ petition being allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-repeal show cause notice cannot rest on a repealed drawback provision unless the saving clause clearly preserves such action, and in the absence of an express recovery mechanism the exported value cannot be reopened for reassessment after export.

---