AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 by holding that the duty elements on inputs imported duty free under Notification No. 150/80-Cus., dated 23-7-1980 should be deducted from the admissible drawback amount in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules (1971) read with drawback Circular No. 9/92 issued under Ministry's F.No. 600/2707/92-DBK dated 17-12-1992. The appeals were also rejected. 3.S/Shri S. Venkatarama Iyer, Advocate, M.R. Diwakar, Chief Manager (Tax & Audit), A.S. Ravichandran, Sr. Manager (Exports) and M. Suresh Kumar appeared for personal hearing on 4-7-1996 at Camp, Madras. The learned Advocate reiterated the submissions made in the revision applications and stressed the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that is in the context of procedure for adjustment of drawback which had already been allowed and is not with reference to making deduction from the amount or rate of drawback fixed]. Under Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules, the drawback is to be allowed at such rates as may be determined by the Central Government. These rates are notified by the Central Government. From the wording of the proviso to Rule 3(1), it is clear that the Central Government has not delegated the power of varying the average amount of drawback to the officers who actually sanction the amount of drawback. [Nor does Section 75(2) provide for making a rule giving such a power]. The proviso only states that in certain circumstances, 'the drawback admissible on the said go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nferred or imposed upon him under the Act. The power to reduce the amount of drawback fixed has not been conferred on an officer of customs under the Act. Section 6 of the Act empowers the Central Government to entrust to any officer of the Central Government any functions of the Board or of any officers of the customs under this Act. The provisions of the Act do not empower the Central Government to entrust its own functions to an officer of customs. 6.The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), in Paragraph 13 of his order has stated : "The proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Duties Drawback Rules does not permit the field officers to go into the details of cost analysis relating to the fixation of the drawback rate in order to determine whether a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and unbridled as there will be no guidelines for making such a reduction. 8.To presume that the average rate fixed by the Central Government is without taking into account the exemptions available under the Customs Tariff Act, permitting the subordinate officers to make reduction from the rate fixed to the extent of exemption availed, will amount to the Central Government not exercising the powers of fixing the appropriate rate and delegating its powers without legal sanction to an officer of customs, who would be making such reductions blindly without reference to the reckoning gone into by the Central Government in the fixation of the drawback rates. It is not as though the Central Government does not take into account these exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....". 10.In this regard it is relevant here to refer to the clarification issued by Commissioner (Drawback) vide D.O. Letter F.No. 600/8703 (o1d 5002)/95-DBK, dated 18-1-1996 as also relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order-in-appeal. Para 4 of the said letter reads as follows : "Ministry's Drawback Circular No. 9/92 dated 17-12-1992 was issued in respect of ready-made garments where the then All Industry Rate of Drawback was based on f.o.b. basis and the cost of the duty free labels contributes a part of the final f.o.b. value of the export product whereas in the case of bicycles exported under Quantity Based Advance Licence, All Industry Rate of Drawback had a specific rate, i.e. Rs. 56/- per bicycle for the peri....