Drawback claims require proof of duty-paid inputs; a market-purchase explanation alone does not satisfy the evidentiary burden.

A drawback claimant must furnish the declaration required under Rule 11 of the Customs and Excise Drawback Rules, 1971, and the competent authority may call for supporting information under Rule 8 to verify the class of materials used and the duty paid on them. Where the exporter fails to substantiate the duty-paid character of the inputs used in the exported goods and the quantum of duty incidence suffered, the claim is liable to rejection. An assertion that the goods were purchased from the market and therefore deemed duty-paid does not satisfy the specific evidentiary requirement. The drawback rejection was upheld and the revision application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the drawback claim was liable to be rejected for failure to substantiate the declaration made in the shipping bill regarding the duty-paid character of the inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods and the quantum of duty incidence suffered by such inputs.

Analysis: A claimant for drawback must make the declaration required by Rule 11 of the Customs and Excise Drawback Rules, 1971. Drawback is a rebate of duty on imported or excisable material used in manufacture, and Rule 8 authorises the competent authority to call for information and documents necessary to determine the class or description of materials used and the amount of duty paid on them. Where the authority seeks such information, the exporter is obliged to furnish it. The explanation that the goods were bought from the market and therefore deemed duty-paid did not answer the specific requirement to establish the duty incidence on the inputs used in the exported goods.

Conclusion: The rejection of the drawback claim was upheld and the revision application failed.

---