Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether drawback on fibre content under the drawback schedule could be denied merely because the shipping bills did not contain the declaration in the precise form required, and whether the matter required verification of actual non-obtaining of rebate of duty on fibres.
Analysis: The export goods were 100% polyester sarees made from duty-paid fibres, and drawback had already been allowed for yarn and dye content. The declaration in the shipping bills stated that no separate claim for rebate of duty had been or would be made, which substantially conveyed that no rebate had been obtained. The requirement was treated as one capable of verification, and the department had not made any enquiry or called for proof before rejecting the claim. In these circumstances, a narrow and legalistic construction of the declaration was held to be unwarranted, having regard to the object of drawback as an export incentive.
Conclusion: The rejection of drawback on the ground of defective declaration was not justified; the claims were allowed to the extent of remand for verification of whether rebate of duty on fibres had in fact been obtained.
Ratio Decidendi: A drawback claim should not be denied on a purely technical defect in the form of declaration where the substance of the requirement is met and the factual eligibility can be verified by the department.