Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.2. It was therefore submitted that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revisional Authority have rightly rejected the drawback claim of the petitioner in consonance with Rule 13 of the Rules, 1995 which provides that the claim for drawback should be accompanied by the documents enumerated in the said Rules and if the claim is incomplete in any material NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16462/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined particulars or is without the documents specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13, of the Rules, 1995, such claim is required to be returned to the claimant with a deficiency memo and the exporter is required to submit a claim for drawback after complying with the requirements specified in the deficiency memo. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, the petitioner failed to provide the triplicate copy of the shipping bill and in spite of that, the respondent No.3 considering the FIR filed by the petitioner on 14.05.2011 showing the details of the lost documents and ignored the mandatory requirement of the triplicate copy of the shipping bill for sanction of the drawback claim. It was further submitted that the delay of five and half years for making the drawback claim was never explained by the petitioner and therefore, the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16462/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined petitioner was not entitled to the drawback claim as held in the concurrent findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Revisional Authority. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following averments made in the Affidavit-in- Reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3:

14. That, contentions and averments made at Ground (F) and (G) of the Petition are not true and denied. One of the grounds raised by the department in the appeal against the Order-in- Original was that the exporter (Petitioner) had not submitted any of the original documents viz. Triplicate NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16462/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined copy and Export Promotion copy of Shipping Bill, Invoice, Packing List, Bill of Lading, Bank Realisation Certificate, Mate Receipt. In the Order dated 31.08.2020, Respondent No. 2 has observed that Shipping Bills filed manually, unlike those filed in the EDI system, can be manipulated with ease; that as per the provisions of Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules, 1995, Triplicate copy of Shipping Bills filed for export goods should be deemed to be a claim for drawback filed on the date of permitted exports, the triplicate copy of the shipping bills is the only valid document for sanction of drawback. In this context, Respondent No. 2 has observed that in case where such document is not available or misplaced, Public Notices / Standing Orders issued by the Department for reconstruction of lost documents for sanction of drawback would have been available to the applicant. In the standing Order No. 03/2009 dated 04.02.2009 of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16462/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Distt. Raigad, prescribing procedure for reconstruction of Shipping Bill, it has been mentioned that the procedure is devised basically to ensure that there is no double use of the Shipping Bills.
Impugned order reveals that the respondent-exporter had obtained certificate from CST on 14.05.2011 showing details of lost documents, which has been accepted as sacrosanct by the adjudicating authority. I do not have the materials facts mentioned in the said certificate, yet I fail to understand the sanctity of such a document issued by the railway authority and that too issued after 5½ years from the exports! If this certificate means that the documents were actually lost only on or around 14.05.2011, a question comes up as to why then, the respondent-exporter had not filed the documents or claimed NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16462/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined drawback till this date? On the other hand, if the documents were actually lost earlier and the certificate was issued after 5½ years, then that certificate has no legitimate value. In either case, it is mysterious as to what prevented the respondent exporter from filing a complaint or FIR with police authorities, in case such important original documents were actually lost? Further, their claim about loss of the entire set of only original documents, with all photocopies safely available with them even at this stage, itself gives more doubt than credibility! I have also reasons to doubt a sinister design, than a mere coincidence, that they have obtained the certificate from CST on 14.05.2011 and filed drawback claim through their CHA on the same day of 14.05.2011, furnished indemnity bonds on 19.05,2011, and sourced Bank, Realization Certificates in respect of all the 10 shipping bills on 20.05.2011.
18. Though, as per the provisions of Rule 13 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties, and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 triplicate copy of shipping bills filed for export goods should be deemed to be a claim for drawback filed on the date of permitted exports, the triplicate copy of the shipping bills is the only valid document for sanction of drawback. As stated in preceding para and as per the applicants own say, the triplicate copy in respect of all NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16462/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined the 10 manual shipping bills were lost by the applicant and therefore, they could not file the drawback claims earlier and in time. In case where such document is not available or misplaced, Public Notices/Standing Orders issued by the Department for reconstruction of lost documents for sanction of drawback would have been available to the applicant. However, instead of resorting to such a means, the applicant after 5 and ½ years filed a complaint with the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Railway Police Station, CST, Mumbai for loss of such documents on 14.05.2011 and remarkably on the very same day the applicant requested for Drawback claim for the said shipping bills through their CHA."