Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Section 3 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 129DD in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Customs (Export) vs Kultar Export on 23 July, 2012
In the case of Kultar Export (supra),
the respondents herein had initiated recovery proceedings for the
period 2003-04 to 2006-07 i.e. for the period prior to Circular
No.16/2009 stating that the exporter therein was a
merchant/trader exporter and not a manufacturer or the person,
who had got the garments stitched under job work and,
therefore, was wrongly paid drawback of Rs.1,43,15,400/-. On
appeal before the tribunal, the merchant-exporter succeeded. It
was observed that the only applicable legal provision was Rule 3
of the Customs and Excise Drawback Rules, 1995, which did
W.P.(C) 2548/2013 Page 4 of 9
not make any such distinction. It was further observed that the
respondents themselves had not relied on the said distinction
when drawbacks were paid in spite of the circulars that
drawback would be available to manufacturer/exporters or the
person, who had got the garments manufactured on job work. It
was held that the exporter therein was under a bona fide belief
that they were eligible for drawback and this belief was also
accepted and acted upon by the authorities. After referring and
quoting from the order of the tribunal, the Division Bench has
held as under:-
1