Statutory relaxation for drawback claims must be decided on individual merits, not rejected under a blanket policy.

A statutory relaxation power under Rule 15 must be considered on the merits of the individual export case where non-compliance is said to have arisen for reasons beyond the exporter's control. Rule 6 provides the ordinary time limit for drawback claims, but it does not displace the separate enabling discretion under Rule 15. A blanket policy not to invoke Rule 15 cannot override the statutory framework or replace reasoned decision-making. The rejection based solely on policy was unsustainable, and the matter was required to be reconsidered under Rule 15 before applying the time-bar under Rule 6.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the exporter's claim for drawback and the refusal to consider relaxation under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 on the basis of a general policy decision was lawful, and whether the matter required reconsideration under Rule 15 before the time-bar under Rule 6 could be applied.

Analysis: Rule 6 prescribes a 30-day period for applying for determination of drawback, with a further 30-day extension on sufficient cause being shown. Rule 15 is a distinct enabling provision empowering the Central Government, where export compliance failed for reasons beyond the exporter's control, to exempt the exporter from the relevant rule and allow drawback for recorded reasons. The two rules operate in different fields: Rule 6 governs the ordinary time limit, while Rule 15 confers a separate power of relaxation in genuine cases. A blanket policy not to invoke Rule 15 cannot override the statutory framework or prevent consideration of an individual application on its merits. The authority was therefore required to apply its mind to the prerequisites of Rule 15 and record a reasoned decision rather than reject the request solely on policy grounds.

Conclusion: The rejection based only on policy was unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered under Rule 15, with consequential consideration under Rule 6 if the Rule 15 conditions were found satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The exporter obtained relief because the authorities were required to decide the relaxation request on statutory parameters and not by treating policy as a substitute for the rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power of relaxation must be exercised on the merits of the individual case in accordance with the governing rules, and a general executive policy cannot defeat or supplant that statutory discretion.

---