By TIOL News Service

JAIPUR, JULY 15, 2014: THE dispute relates to rejection of supplementary drawback claims filed by the Petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner (drawback) originally conveyed to the petitioner that eleven shipping bills were found to be time barred as they were not submitted within three months from the date of payment of the original drawback. It also expressed that the reason, if any, shown for condonation of delay, had not been found justifiable. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the petitioner by observing, inter-alia, that the reasons given by the petitioner are strong and sufficient enough to condone the delay in filing the supplementary claims and direction was given to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the supplementary drawback claims on merits. On appeal by the department, the Revisional authority restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

The revisional authority passed an order as early as on 15/12/2009 wherein, after detailed analysis of the material place on record, the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the two reasons assigned by the petitioner are no good reasons and there was lapse on the part of the petitioner. It also expressed that there are already guidelines issued from time to time by the customs authorities as also by way of public notice. The attention has been drawn on public notice/ guidelines which have been circulated all throughout bearing Public Notice No.44/96 dt . 27/08/1996 which has expressly provided that once the goods are exported, the status of the drawback claim whether signed or under any query/deficiency, is always available in the EDI System and can be ascertained by the exporter or their authorized person from the counter at the service center. It further goes on to say that the designated bank also credits the drawback amount in the account of the exporter on the next day and informs the exporter by sending a fortnightly statement about the payment of drawback claims to them. Therefore, the onus of ascertaining the status of the drawback claim, whether sanctioned short or under any query/deficiency, so as to avoid any delay in filing the subsequent supplementary drawback claims, solely lies on the exporter himself.

Thus, in the light of the said Circular, there are no good reasons at all as the bank promptly credits the amount in the account of the exporter on the very next day and also sends fortnightly statements to the exporter and the petitioner herein must have received the statement and nothing has been spelt out in the writ petition or in the arguments by counsel for the petitioner that the bank delayed the same. It is a mere version without any evidence to support the said fact which cannot be accepted.

The second ground is also of no substance for the reason that on one hand, the petitioner says that they were busy in various International Trade Fairs and obviously in so far as the present claim is concerned, it appears that they were not bothered at all or interested in obtaining the benefit which was due to them and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner itself, no one else can be blamed about it.

(See 2014-TIOL-1109-HC-RAJ-CUS)