1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Collector Upholds Drawback Claim Despite Declaration Discrepancy</h1> The Collector (Appeals) upheld the respondents' claim for drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on evidence showing the re-exported ... Duty Drawback Issues involved: Review proceeding initiated on the Show Cause Notice challenging the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin.Summary:The respondents imported polypropylene monofilament yarn from Korea, later found to be polyethylene Monofilament Yarn. They re-exported a portion of the goods to Pakistan and claimed drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellate authority allowed their drawback claim based on correspondence with the suppliers and test reports. The Asstt. Collector did not object to the export. The respondents argued that the goods re-exported were the same as originally imported, despite a discrepancy in the declaration. The essential requirement of Section 74 is to identify the goods to be the same as those imported, which was satisfied through various documents and examination reports.The absence of a detailed examination/test report at the time of import led to reliance on other documents to establish the identity of the re-exported goods. The Appellate Authority considered letters exchanged between parties, import particulars, and examination reports to reach a subjective satisfaction. The physical verification or chemical test discrepancy was deemed immaterial when documentary evidence confirmed the re-exported goods matched the originally imported ones. The Collector (Appeals) found that the goods wrongly dispatched from Korea were re-exported, supported by detailed evidence analysis.The conclusion reached by the Collector (Appeals) was deemed valid, as it was based on substantial evidence and not a mere difference of opinion. The Government respected the findings that established the identity of the re-exported goods with those imported, making the appellants eligible for the claimed drawback. Consequently, the review proposal was dropped.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
