Duty drawback claim delay not fatal where explanation was given; reconsideration on merits upheld under the governing scheme.

Delay in filing a Brand Rate Scheme duty drawback claim was held not to be fatal where the representation itself explained the delay, and a separate condonation application was not required in the circumstances. The Court accepted that the claimant could not pursue a parallel remedy and that the delay was beyond its control. Applying Rule 15 and paragraph 70 of the Export and Import Policy, the Court upheld the direction setting aside the rejection and requiring reconsideration of the claim on merits, finding that the Single Judge's approach accorded with the governing legal framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the respondent's claim for duty drawback on the ground of delay was liable to be interfered with and whether the direction to reconsider the claim on merits was justified.

Analysis: The respondent's earlier applications for duty exemption had been rejected, and the claim under the Brand Rate Scheme was also rejected for delay. The Court held that, having regard to the scheme of the Rules and paragraph 70 of the Export and Import Policy, non-filing of a separate application for condonation of delay was not fatal where the representation itself explained the delay. The Court further accepted the view that the respondent could not have pursued a parallel remedy and that the delay was beyond its control. The Court found that the learned Single Judge's decision to set aside the endorsement and require reconsideration on merits was consistent with the governing legal framework under Rule 15.

Conclusion: The order directing reconsideration of the respondent's claim on merits was upheld and no interference was called for.

---