Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request to condone the delay in filing the claim for duty drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short “the Act”) read with Rule 7A of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 (in short “the Drawback Rules”), in respect of the shipping bills disclosed in the impugned order.

6. Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, enables the petitioner to make a duty drawback claim for the subject shipping bills. Rule 5(1) of the Drawback Rules makes it clear that the petitioner will have to make a duty drawback claim within a period of 3 months from the date on which an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation under Section 51 is made by proper officer of customs. As per the proviso to Rule 5(1), the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may, if he is satisfied that the exporter was prevented by sufficient cause to file his claim within the period of three months, allow the exporter to file his claim within a further period of three months. Admittedly, in the case on hand, although the petitioner was allowed to clear and re-export the goods during September,2018- October,2018, the duty drawback claim was filed only in December,2019- January,2020. Therefore, the statutory time limit prescribed under Rule 5(1) of the Drawback Rules has got expired. Only under those circumstances, the petitioner had submitted an application to the Central Government under Rule __________ Page12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 05:43:02 pm ) 7A of the Drawback Rules seeking for relaxation of the time limit prescribed under Rule 5(1) of the Drawback Rules. The application filed by the petitioner under Rule 7A of the Drawback Rules seeking for condoning the delay in making the duty drawback claim has once again been rejected under the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 holding that the reasons given by the petitioner for not making the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time limit is unsatisfactory and does not show sufficient cause. Under the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, the first respondent has given due consideration to the reasons given by the petitioner for not making the duty drawback claim on time. In paragraph Nos.3.4 and 3.5 of the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, the first respondent has given his findings as follows:-

14. During the course of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since all the subject shipping bills pertain to the year 2018, which is much after coming into force of the Drawback Rules, i.e., from 21.09.2017, as per Rule 14 of the Drawback Rules, the date of filing of the shipping bills should be taken as the date of filing of the duty drawback claim. Therefore, according to him, the drawback claim made by the petitioner is well within the time. However, the said contention does not deserve any merit, since the petitioner themselves had earlier filed an application seeking to condone the delay in making the duty drawback claim for the subject shipping bills on 27.12.2019 and 02.01.2020. Having filed such an application, the petitioner cannot now be allowed to contend that the date of filing of shipping bills itself should be reckoned as filing a claim for duty drawback. It is also pertinent to state that in order to apply for duty drawback claim, there must be an intent to make such a claim by the party, and only thereafter, the Customs Department will be in a position to verify the documents, like invoice, proof of duty and export packing lists, leading to electronic process and direct credit of the revision to the nominated bank account of the party. The intent to make the duty drawback claim by the petitioner was expressed only through their __________ Page18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 05:43:02 pm ) representations dated 27.12.2019 and 02.01.2020, wherein they had sought to condone the delay in filing the duty drawback claim. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that presentation of the shipping bills with the Customs Department itself will amount to a deemed claim for duty drawback, is incorrect, and is liable to be rejected by this Court.

2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Customs (chennai Zone), Custom House, 60, Rajajisalai, Chennai-600 001.

3. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Chennai Iv Commissionerate, Custom House, 60, Rajajisalai, Chennai-600 001.

4. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (drawback) O/o.Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai Iv Commissionerate, Custom House, 60, Rajajisalai, Chennai-600 001.