2022 (3) TMI 1325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as Respondent) had filed six Shipping Bills No.4791153, 4791155, 4791165, 4791175, 4791194 and 4791217, all dated 3.4.2013 for export of Horticulture & Agriculture Machinery parts under claim of drawback. Suspecting over-valuation, an investigation was initiated and goods were allowed to be exported provisionally on execution of bond and bank guarantee of Rs. 1 crore. A show cause notice dated 06.11.2013 was issued to the respondent, which was adjudicated vide order-in-original no.101/2015/RR/JC/Exp/ICD/TKD dated 18.11.2015 by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, ICD Export, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, in which the declared value was rejected and the same was re-determined, the goods were confiscated and redemption ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of stipulation under Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962 and any amount paid over and above the stipulated amount shall not be treated as deposit under the said section. Even if the impugned amount was to be treated as payment made during the course of investigation, it could have been treated as pre-deposit only upto the extent of 7.5% of the total deposit made. The respondent was not entitled to refund of even 7.5% of impugned amount as it has failed to establish that the impugned amount was deposited in relation to the investigation and any competent authority has made any favourable order with respect to the impugned amount. iv) The Respondent had submitted that they were claiming refund under Section 27(1)(b) of the Custo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r contented that exporter filed refund claim only on 9.9.2017, which is more than one year and 4 months from 21.05.2016. Further, it appears that the said amount was not paid by way of pre-deposit, as per provisions of Section 129 E of the Customs Act. 7. The respondent-assessee supports the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there was an existing dispute with regard to valuation of the exported goods, which is relevant for the purpose of calculation of draw back. The export was allowed under provisional 'Let Export Order'. Hence, there was an existing dispute (subjudice) between the parties, when the amount of Rs. 18,68,000 was deposited in July, 2013. Accordingly, such deposit ipso facto is in th....