2017 (8) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....steel concast billets under two separate shipping bills both dated July 12, 2006 with a due drawback claim of Rs. 36,10,796/- and Rs. 19,98,616/-. The shipping bills were filed electronically. Export order was issued on July 19, 2006. The same was also taken electronically. The Electronic Data Interchange System (EDI System) was introduced for the first time at Kolkata Customs during that relevant point of time. He refers to Rule 13(5) of the Drawback Rules 1995 and submits that, by virtue of the notification dated July 13, 2006, the electronic shipping bill itself will be treated as a claim for drawback. Consequently, the shipping bill dated July 12, 2006 bearing no. 5318141 filed by the petitioner in the EDI System will be treated as a dr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....revision was allowed by the Order dated June 14, 2013 disallowing the claim for duty drawback and upholding the order in original. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not aware of the queries raised in the EDI System as the petitioner did not have access thereto. Consequently, the queries went unattended. The petitioner having received one claim on duty drawback out of the two shipping bills of the same date, it did not have any reason to suspect that, the other duty drawback would not be granted. However, immediately upon the petitioner becoming aware of the problem it had taken corrective measures, and had lodged a supplementary claim. Consequently, the petitioner should be allowed to receive the benefi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wback. It had introduced the EDI System. At the relevant point of time, it was introduced for the first time, in Kolkata. The petitioners did not have access to such system. The claim for duty drawback was assessed electronically and apparently the authorities had raised query on December 19, 2006 for submission of ARE-1 and BRC. A subsequent query was raised on March 23, 2007 requiring submission of ARE-1, buyer's order and BRC. These queries are not substantiated to be served upon the petitioners. Since the petitioners did not respond to such queries, the authorities had scrolled the subject shipping bill as zero drawback on February 26, 2009 and sent it to history on March 29, 2009. The respondents have not substantiated that all these i....