Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy on Duty Drawback Refund: No Need for Actual Duty-Paid Documents

The court interpreted paragraph 7.06(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 in a case concerning refund of deemed export drawback. The judgment clarified that the petitioner is not required to obtain a brand rate of duty drawback based on actual duty-paid documents for the return of basic customs duty. The court directed the respondents to accept the petitioner's claims for duty drawback of the customs component without insisting on actual duty-paid documents, subject to a disclaimer from the Domestic Tariff Area unit. The judgment did not address the petitioner's claims for damages or interest, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of paragraph 7.06(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 (FTP 2015-2020) concerning refund of deemed export drawback.
2. Comparison of the impugned provision in the present matter with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1644/2019.
3. Effect of the amendment to paragraph 7.06 of FTP 2015-2020 via Notification No. 28/2015-2020.
4. Relief sought against paragraph 7.06(b) of the Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP 2015-2020).
5. Claiming refund of duty drawback on the customs component under Column 'B' of the All Industry Rate.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the interpretation of paragraph 7.06(b) of FTP 2015-2020 in the context of refund of deemed export drawback. It is noted that the impugned provision in the present case differs from the provision in the previous judgment, primarily in the location of the provision within the policy framework. The amendment to paragraph 7.06 of FTP 2015-2020, introduced via Notification No. 28/2015-2020 and given retrospective effect, is also considered in the analysis. The petitioner sought relief against paragraph 7.06(b) of HBP 2015-2020, and the judgment provides directions in this regard.

The core issue revolves around the petitioner's claim for a refund of duty drawback on the customs component under Column 'B' of the All Industry Rate. The judgment clarifies that the petitioner is not required to obtain a brand rate of duty drawback based on actual duty-paid documents for the return of basic customs duty. Consequently, paragraph 7.06(b) of FTP 2015-2020 and HBP 2015-2020, prior to the amendment, are read down to accommodate the petitioner's claim.

The court directs the respondents to accept and allow the petitioner's claims for duty drawback of the customs component without insisting on actual duty-paid documents. However, the petitioner must provide a disclaimer from the Domestic Tariff Area unit regarding duty drawback claims on the customs component for the relevant supplies. Notably, the judgment does not address the issue of damages or interest claimed by the petitioner, as per the statement made by the petitioner's counsel.

In conclusion, the reasoning applied in the previous judgment is extended to the present case, and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The judgment provides detailed directions to address the specific issues raised by the petitioner regarding the refund of duty drawback on the customs component, ensuring a fair and just resolution in line with the legal framework and policy provisions.

---