TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istry of Finance (the Revisional Authority), whereby the petitioner's revision application [case bearing F. No. 375/20/DBK/2018-RA captioned M/s Rangoli International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, New Custom House, Delhi] was rejected. 2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the demand for refund of the duty drawback amounting to Rs.1,74,11,800/- availed by the petitioner for exports during the period 09.05.2012 to 01.07.2013 along with interest. The petitioner claims that it had exported goods to Dubai during the aforementioned period under cover of 55 Shipping Bills and had availed of duty drawback in respect of the said exports. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not receive foreign exchange r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of the number of shipping bills. Apparently, the petitioner claimed that it had not received the export proceeds in some cases on account of disputes with the foreign buyers. In some cases, the disputes had been settled after negotiations and the petitioner expected that it would receive the proceeds shortly. The petitioner had also furnished statement of bank realisations in some cases. It appears that the petitioner had sought time to submit Bank Remittance Certificates (BRCs) but despite the opportunity, it was unable to submit BRCs in respect of most of the Shipping Bills in question. 5. Aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 11.11.2016/23.11.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner's challenge to the recovery of duty drawback is concerned, we find that the ground now sought to be urged was not urged before the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority, or the Revisional Authority. The order-in-appeal indicates that the petitioner had challenged the order-in-original dated 11.11.2016/23.11.2016 on three grounds. First, that the same was passed without affording further time to prepare a reply. Second, that the petitioner was entitled to write off unrealised export bills in terms of the RBI Circular dated 12.03.2013; and third, that the penalty cannot be imposed as the export proceeds were not realised for no fault on the part of the petitioner. It was not the petitioner's case that drawback is not an expor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ten off in terms of the Circular would not be considered as non-compliant with the provisions of FEMA but the same did not affect the exporter's obligations under other enactments. The contention that write off of unrealised bills in terms of the RBI Circular dated 12.03.2013 also absolved the petitioner from refunding the duty drawback availed by the petitioner, is without merit. 11. It is relevant to refer to Section 75 of the Customs Act, which contains provisions regarding drawback. The second proviso to Section 75 is relevant and reads as under: "PROVIDED FURTHER that where any drawback has been allowed on any goods under this sub-section and the sale proceeds in respect of such goods are not received by or on behalf of the exporter....