1992 Supreme(Cal) 348
High Court Of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, Abani Mohan Sinha
ASSTT.COLLECTOR OF CUS. - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN MALLEABLE AND FORGINGS LTD. - Respondent
Matter 5780 Of 1988
Decided On : 09/02/1992
CHANDAN MUKHERJI, N.C.ROY CHAUDHARY, SAMIR CHAKRABORTY, SANJAY BAID
The interpretation of Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the scope of challenge to the valuation of exported goods at the implementation stage.
Headnote:
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SECTION 74 - DRAWBACK - RE-EXPORTATION OF DEFECTIVE GOODS - IDENTIFICATION OF RE-EXPORTED GOODS - VALUATION OF RE-EXPORTED GOODS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 74(1) OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Hindustan Malleable and Forgings Ltd., claimed a refund of Rs. 1,92,828.29 as drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, for re-exporting defective imported goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim, finding that the identity of the re-exported goods with the imported goods was not established. The Appellate Authority and the Central Government upheld the respondent's claim, finding that the identity was established and the respondent was entitled to the full benefit of the drawback.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants, the Assistant Collector of Customs and Others, could not challenge the valuation of the exported goods and re-appraise the same at the implementation stage. The court upheld the judgment of the trial court, which had held that the appellants were not permitted to dishonor the order of payment passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and confirmed by the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the identity of the re-exported goods with the imported goods was established. 2. Whether the appellants could challenge the valuation of the exported goods at the implementation stage.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and held that the establishment of identity of the re-exported goods with reference to the imported ones is a vital question to be considered before admitting a claim for drawback. However, in the present case, the Appellate Authority and the Central Government had already upheld the respondent's claim, finding that the identity was established. 2. The court held that the appellants could not challenge the valuation of the exported goods and re-appraise the same at the implementation stage, as they had not challenged the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Central Government, which had upheld the respondent's claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the judgment of the trial court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Others against the Judgment and Order dated March 20, 1992 passed by the learned Judge taking writ matters.
( 2 ) BY a writ application, the respondent Hindustan Malleable and Forgings Ltd. claimed refund of sum of Rs. 1,92,828. 29 as an amount of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent-writ petitioner claimed this amount by way of drawback as the imported goods were re-exported, inasmuch as the said goods were found defective and, therefore, the writ petitioner claimed refund of duty paid on the imported goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim for refund of the said amount on the ground that the goods which were re-exported were not properly identified and the respondent-writ petitioner failed to establish an identification of the re-exported goods before claiming a drawback under Section 74 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the identity for the re-exported goods with reference to the import documents had not been established and as such the claim by the respondent writ petitioner merited rejection. 'from the said Order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, being the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Customs Office, Calcutta, and the Appellate Authority found that there was no doubt that the goods which were exported back to the supplier were nothing but re-exportation of defective parts and according to the Appellate Authority, the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to a claim on this case. On the question of value of the consignments, the Appellate Authority observed that the reference to the value of the consignments at the time of exportation was based on a suspicion that the value of the consignments had deteriorated after it has been imported. The Appellate Authority also found that the export valuation was to be recorded in this context as equivalent to the goods which were supplied in lieu thereof, i. e. , in lieu of the imported articles, and the Appellate Authority also found that Section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable. The Appellate Authority concerned ultimately found that the goods were defective and the same were re-exported. As such according to the Appellate Authority, the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to the full benefit of the drawback on the original value. The Appellate Authority with this observation allowed the appeal.
( 3 ) FROM this order, the appellants before us filed a revision application before the Central Government. The Central Government rejected the revision application. While rejecting the revision application, the Central Government observed that the drawings produced during the personal hearing indicated the exact location of the defective components exported by the respondent-writ petitioner and that from the description of the goods imported a co-relation could be established to prove that the components received subsequently as replacements are the components for the main machine imported originally by the respondent-writ petitioner. The Central Government found that the respondent-writ petitioner would be entitled to drawback claim and also found that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was correct in law.
( 4 ) IN this appeal, the appellants have contended that Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 stipulates that the goods which were re-exported should be the same as that were imported and the establishment of identity of the re-exported goods with reference to the imported ones is a vital question to be considered before admitting a claim for drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the appellants, the identity of the goods was not established and the value of the defective goods which were re-exported could not be ascertained or determined only