By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 14, 2015: THE brief facts are that the appellants made import by debiting the DEPB Licenses at Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai and which were re-exported and permission was granted by the JNPT Customs authorities under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, subsequent to verifying that the goods exported were the same as imported by the Appellant.

The goods imported vide Bill of Entry dated 04.05.2007 were re-exported on 11.6.2007. The Certificate dated 21.04.2009 was issued by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Gr./VA, JNCH, Sheva towards the refund of duty eligible to be credited, which was addressed to the Jt. DGFT, Churchgate, Mumbai.

Similarly, the goods imported vide B/E dated 09.06.2008 were re-exported on 25.11.2008. The Certificate dated 03.06.2009 was issued by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Gr.II, C & D, JNCH towards the refund of duty eligible to be credited which was addressed to the Jt. DGFT, Churchgate, Mumbai.

Accordingly, the Appellant furnished both the Certificates before the DGFT authorities for issuing of necessary DEPB Scrips.The DGFT authorities were pleased to issue 2 DEPB Scrips dated August 2009 for re-crediting of the duty amount.

Thereafter, the appellant approached the O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai for registering of the DEPB Scrips. The Addl. Commissioner of Customs refused to register the scrips &informed the appellant the reason - that the re-exports have not taken from the same Port, which is a requirement in terms of CBE&C Circular No. 75/2000-Cus dated 11.9.2000.

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III upheld this order and so the matter was ported to the Tribunal.

The appellant submitted that once the Customs authority certified that the same goods which were imported earlier have been re-exported and they have issued certificate so as to enable the appellant to obtain fresh DEPB certificate as entitled, refusal to register the same is bad and it amounts to taking away by the other hand what has been given by one hand.

Reliance is also placed on the Customs Circular No. 71/2002 (should be 72/2002-Cus) dated 1.11.2002 wherein the Board has clarified that Drawback under Section 74 should be allowed on merits without insisting on re-export of goods from the same Port.

The AR did not have much to add.

The CESTAT held -

"5. …, I am satisfied that the re-export have been done as required under the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act. I also find that all the facts have also been recorded in both certificates dated 21.4.2009 and 3.6.2009 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs addressed to the Joint DGFT. Further, in view of the Circular No. 71/2002-Cus which gave specific direction to the Customs authorities not to insist for re-export from the same Port in case of duty drawback. Accordingly, I hold that the said Circular is binding on the Revenue authorities, and the learned Commissioner is in error in refusing to allow registration of the DEPB scrip issued. Thus, the appeal is allowed. I further direct the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai to register both the DEPB scrips…"

In passing : For similar results, see Torrent Pharmaceuticals [2009-TIOL-586-CESTAT-MUM].

(See 2015-TIOL-1927-CESTAT-MUM )