Beneficial drawback provision applied despite clerical error and procedural objections in export claim processing

Drawback was treated as admissible where exports were made under white shipping bills after the export obligation was fulfilled, the LUT/BG stood discharged and the licences became transferable. The Tribunal viewed the recorded date error in the drawback application as a clerical lapse because the application number matched and no revenue risk was shown. It also noted that CVD had been paid on imported inputs and that the relevant public notice contemplated drawback at the applicable rate under Notification No. 80/95. The procedural objection was rejected on the principle that a beneficial drawback provision should not be denied for mere procedural non-compliance, and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether drawback was admissible where exports were made under white shipping bills and the claim was otherwise met with procedural objections, including delay and a clerical error in the shipping bill particulars.

Analysis: The goods were exported in discharge of export obligation, the LUT/BG stood discharged, and the licences were made transferable. The record showed that CVD had been paid on imported inputs under Notification No. 80/95 dated 31-3-1995, while the public notice issued under that notification contemplated drawback at the relevant rate. The exports were under white shipping bills, which indicated that drawback had not been claimed at the time of export, and the error in recording the date of application was only clerical because the application number tallied and there was no revenue risk. The Tribunal treated the defect as a procedural lapse and applied the principle that a beneficial drawback provision should not be denied merely for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Conclusion: Drawback was held admissible and the procedural objection was rejected, resulting in relief to the assessee.

---