Haji’s International Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Rule 16 Recovery Invalid Because 2017 Drawback Rules Did Not Save Old Recovery Proceedings; Duty Drawback Demand Set Aside Because Rule 20(2) Saved Only Pending Claims; Drawback Already Granted at All Industry Rate Cannot Be Denied Over Alleged Fake Procurement Invoices; CESTAT Holds Confiscation Impossible Because Exported Goods Were Already Out of India.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, allowed appeals filed against an order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Mumbai Zone-III. The impugned order had rejected duty drawback of Rs.773.86 lakhs under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and directed recovery under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 along with interest. It also rejected drawback amounting to Rs.2,24,93,070 relating to 198 shipping bills under Rule 16A of the 1995 Drawback Rules, confiscated goods with redemption fine, and imposed penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act.
The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in export of garments, had exported goods mainly to Nigeria during January 2012 to December 2016 under 699 shipping bills and claimed drawback at the All Industry Rate. The consignments were assessed by customs authorities, Let Export Orders were issued, and drawback amounting to Rs.773.86 lakhs was disbursed. The appellant also stated that export proceeds had been realized through foreign exchange inward remittances supported by Bank Realization Certificates.
