Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drawback Rules was payable on tubes and flaps exported by the petitioner when they were manufactured from natural rubber on which no duty had been paid.
Analysis: Section 75 empowers drawback only in respect of goods manufactured in India and exported where imported material or excisable material used in their manufacture is duty-bearing, and the rules likewise confine drawback to goods specified for such rebate. Rule 3 makes the allowance subject to the Customs Act and the Drawback Rules and expressly excludes drawback where the goods are produced or manufactured using imported materials or excisable materials in respect of which duties have not been paid. On the admitted facts, the petitioner's tubes and flaps were manufactured from natural rubber that was not dutiable at the relevant time. The prescribed rates in the public notice therefore could not operate independently of the statutory conditions governing entitlement.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to drawback on the exported goods manufactured from non-dutiable natural rubber, and the challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Drawback under the Customs law is available only when the exported goods are manufactured from duty-paid materials and cannot be claimed merely because a general rate has been prescribed for the class of goods.