1997 (2) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-11-1990 (earlier imported under Bill of Entry dated 21-7-1989) was rejected by the original authority vide Order-in-Original No. 918/91, dated 17-9-1991 on the ground that at the time of import clearance though there was a leakage, the extent of leakage was not known and there was no such evidence about leakage in the surveyor's report and the identity of the goods exported was not established. On appeal the appellate authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. C/25/744/DBK/91, dated 24-2-1992 allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Subsequently, the drawback amount claimed to the extent of 60% of import duty paid was sanctioned to the applicants. The applicants vide their letter dated 10-3-1992 addressed to the Asstt. Collector of Customs, A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ords observes that in order to have a proper prospective of the issue it is necessary to dwell on the supplementary claim of drawback. Under Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules framed under Section 75 ibid an exporter can file supplementary claim for drawback only when he finds that the amount of drawback paid to him is less than what he is entitled to on the basis of the amount or rate of drawback determined by the Central Government. 5.The short point for determination in the instant case is whether supplementary claim for drawback under Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules can be filed in respect of goods exported under Section 74 ibid. For this purpose, it is necessary to make a distinction between Section 74 and Section 75 ibid. In this conne....