TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case are that M/s. Fichem, Gujarat had re-exported a consignment of Dye intermediate viz. 3-Amino Acetanilide 4-sulfonic Acid on reprocessing the goods which were imported vide B/E No. 10171 dated 25-4-1997 and 5595 dated 14-5-1997. The said consignment was re-exported under S/Bill No. 1000871298 dated 17-7-1997 against the claim of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 The drawback claim of the exporter under Section 74 vide said S/Bill dated 16-7-1997 was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs by an Order-in-Original No. S/10-678/97 DBK Sec. 74 dated 5-11-1997. Aggrieved by said order dated 5-11-1997, the exporter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, who vide ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o consider extra amount as refund under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 The Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Department vide said letter dated 1-7-2002 had also directed the exporter to file appeal if not satisfied as there is no scope to consider the supplementary claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 1-7-2002, the exporter had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The appellate authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 4/2004 dated 20-1-2004 rejected the exporter's appeal on the grounds of delay. The exporter had filed a revision application before Revisionary Authority against the said Order-in-Appeal dated 20-1-2004. Revisionary Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant has claimed drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, 98% of Rs. 8,24,126/- i.e. Rs. 8,07,644/- was sanctioned to the appellant. The appellant, besides the above amount is claiming 98% of the recovered drawback of Rs. 1,33,845/- i.e. Rs. 1,30,667/-. Since the said claim is contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority has rejected the drawback claim of the appellant. Aggrieved of this, the appellant has filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who after due consideration of the submissions as made therein rejected the same thus upholding the views of the adjudicating authority. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d/or amount of Drawback availed, when the relevant export had taken place, such amounts are still payable and collected as import duties. 3.6 The Board have vide Chapter 20 under C.B.E. & C.'s Customs Manual vide Paras 2 and 3 thereunder amply clarified with reference to re-imports and particularly Notification 94/96-Cus. that:- a. "it is to be noted that under Section 12, on import, duties of Customs are leviable and no distinction is made whether the goods being imported had discharged duties earlier and they are being re-imported after exportation for particular purpose". b. "when these are re-imported they attract and have to discharge the Customs duty leviable on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that too in a situation of (1) excess or erroneous payment, or (2) export proceeds not realized in Foreign Exchange; f. there are no provisions under the said Section 75 and the 1995 Drawback Rules for recovery of drawback on the occasion of re-import; g. in the subject case no Show Cause/Demand Notice has been issued under Section 75 read with the 1995 Drawback Rules by the concerned Department i.e. the Export Department and applicants have not been allowed the opportunity of written reply and personal hearing nor any Adjudication Order has been issued, so far, by the Export Department for recovery of Drawback. 3.9 Finally the applicant while giving illustra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aiming 98% of the recovered Drawback amount of Rs. 1,33,845/- on the plea that this amount is nothing but also Customs Duties and he is entitled for the same as per Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Government therefore notes that what is to be considered and decided herein is as to whether the drawback amount paid back herein is required to be considered as "Any Customs Duty" so as to qualify for fresh (present) drawback in terms of Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as being claimed by the applicant) or this is to be considered as recovery of drawback amount and not any duty paid (as held by the lower authorities herein). 8. In reference to above, Government is of the opinion that for deciding the issue, the sim....