2025 (11) TMI 387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the goods were being re-exported under the duty drawback scheme. The appellant noticed the same while filing their drawback application, which was filed on 27.02.2020, through e-mail. Upon noticing the mistake as to non-fulfilment of the condition specified under Rule 4(a) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 ['the Drawback Rules' for short], the appellant requested the Commissioner to modify the free shipping bill into drawback shipping bill and consequently grant the drawback. The ld. adjudicating authority, after going through the factual details of the case, has held that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition specified under Rule 4(a) of the said Rules. 1.1. He has held that in the no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng this facility, but the same is not specified anywhere in the statute. It is submitted that on this ground, High Courts / Tribunals have been consistently holding that the said Circular is not binding and not enforceable. In view of these submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned order be set aside and a direction may be given to the adjudicating authority to convert the free shipping bill into duty drawback shipping bill and grant the drawback based on the documentary evidence to be placed before him. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that since it is a matter of re-export, as per the Rules, it is mandatory on the part of the appellant to follow Rule 4(a). It is submitted that unl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. We find that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition specified under Rule 4(a) as well as Rule 5 of the Drawback Rules, 1995. In case there was a contravention of only Rule 4(a), we may have relied on the case-law and directed the adjudicating authority to convert the free shipping bill into drawback shipping bill. However, we find that non-fulfilment of Rule 5 of the said Rules has proved fatal to the case of the appellant. We do not see any provision under these Rules for any further condonation after the expiry of twelve months, by any official. The ld. adjudicating authority has also dwelt on this and has held as under: - ....