Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 returnable bobbins imported along with nylon yarn and used only to unwind the yarn for removal were taken into use between clearance from customs control and export, so as to limit drawback to the reduced rate.
Analysis: The bobbins were treated as containers or receptacles for packing yarn. The process of unwinding the yarn from the bobbins for removing the contents did not amount to using the bobbins in the relevant sense. Mere extraction of the yarn from the imported bobbins, without any allegation or finding that the bobbins themselves were employed for winding and unwinding in the appellants' operations, was insufficient to treat them as having been taken into use.
Conclusion: The bobbins were not taken into use; the grant of drawback at reduced rates was incorrect, and the appellants were entitled to drawback at 98% of the duty paid under Section 74 of the Customs Act.