2015 (3) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 380/77/DBK/13 250/13, dated 25-4-13 - Do - 2. Brief facts of the cases are as under :- 2.1 RA No. 380/76/DBK/13 (O-I-A No. 249/13) 2.1.1 M/s. M.S. Sorters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore imported "parts of colour sorting machine" vide bills of entry Nos. 2499337, dated 30-12-2010 and 2353253, dated 23-11-2010 and had paid a duty of Rs. 1,36,556/-. The said goods were re-exported vide shipping bill No. 2118, dated 12-7-2011. The Let Export Order (LEO) was given on 16-7-2011. The claimant had filed a claim for drawback on 15-1-2012 under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 for an amount of Rs. 1,02,417/- being 75% of Customs duties of Rs. 1,36,556/- paid by them at the time of import. The claimant has given a self-declaration....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;  The claim of drawback were filed after the prescribed time limit of three months from the date of let export order but before the expiry of extended period of 3 months condonable by Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. (ii)    The request for condonation of delay and the prescribed fee as per proviso (iii) of Rule 5(1) was received after the expiry of six months from the date of let export order. Hence, the request for condonation of delay which makes the claim complete in all respects as covered under Rule 5(4)(b) ibid has been filed by the claimant after six months from the date of let export order. (iii)   The complete claim along with the prescribed fee filed by the exporter has been filed beyond the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f delay and no extension of time had been obtained earlier, the same could not have been processed and should have been rejected, in-limine. 4.4 The exporter filed the application for condonation of delay beyond the period of 6 months from the date of LEO. Therefore, the claim could have been processed on merits only after the delay had been condoned by the officer competent to do so, i.e. the Commissioner of Customs on payment of appropriate fee, which was not done. As such, the claim was liable for rejection on limitation in terms of Rule 5(1). 5. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 to file their counter reply. The respondent vide their reply, dated 31-12-2013 has mainl....