The entitlement to drawback claims is contingent upon the realization of export proceeds within the time limits prescribed by applicable laws and rules.

1. The petitioner is engaged in the export of garments to various countries. The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P14 order, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order declining the drawbacks claimed by the petitioner for the exports made by him by way of two shipping bill were declined.

2. Facts that lead to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
As part of the business activities, the petitioner exported certain items as per the shipping bills dated 01/07/2014 and 09/07/2014. The claim for drawback for the exports made as per the aforesaid shipping bills were declined by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P9 order, on the reason that the amounts were received by the petitioner after the period stipulated under S.75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with R.16A of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 . Even though an appeal was filed challenging the said order, it culminated in Ext.P12 order which was challenged in a revision petition. The same culminated in Ext.P14 order. This writ petition is submitted challenging the same.

3. A statement has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3, wherein the contentions and reliefs sought by the petitioner are opposed by stating that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with law, as the petitioner could not prove that the repatriation of the amounts covered by the shipping bills referred to above, were within the time limit stipulated in the relevant provisions or within the extended period. Therefore, they sought dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri.M.Balagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Sreejith, the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

5. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the authorities concerned rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly under the impression that the extension of the time is required to be obtained from the Reserve Bank of India itself. It was pointed out with specific reference to the Master Circular issued in this regard, which is produced as Ext.P15, that the extension can be made by the AD category I bank as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court to Exts.P6 and P11 communications issued by AD - I Bank of the petitioner to substantiate that such extension was granted by the Bank and therefore the petitioner is eligible to the drawbacks in proportion of the amounts that got repatriated.

6. On the other hand, the objections of the learned standing counsel for the respondents is by placing reliance upon Exts.P3 and P4, which are issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, wherein, it is specifically mentioned that the date of realization of the money by the bank was on 13/06/2016 and there are no documents to establish that there was indeed an extension of time as permitted in R.16A either by the Reserve Bank of India or by the AD - I Bank.

7. As far as the claim of drawback is concerned, the same is contemplated under S.75 of the Customs Act, which enables the exporter to claim drawback in respect of the value of the exports made by him subject to the conditions stipulated therein. R.16A of the Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules deals with the recovery of drawback where the export proceeds are not realized within the time frame allowed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 . The said provision reads as follows:

"16A. Recovery of a