ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides and perused record.
2. The appeal is in regard to a claim for drawback amounting to Rs. 72,090/- in relation to four exports made to USA by the appellant in October 1990. The submission is that after completion of the exports, the appellant had filed a drawback claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (DBK), New Delhi along with the documents required for establishing the claim. It is being pointed out that after the receipt of the claim and verification of papers, a receipt (token number E-728 dated 15.1.91) was issued to the appellant. However, no payment was made. The appellant continued to pursue the matter but on account of the drawback claim along with relevant papers, being lost in the Customs House, the claim was not paid. On 12th April 1997, the appellant again wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs supplying Bank attested export invoices, airway bill, photocopy of Export Promotion copy of shipping bills, Bank certificates of price Realisation etc. Still no payment was made. Finally, the appellant’s claim was rejected under order dated 18.8.04 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The ground was that the appellant had failed to produce relevant documents.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). That appeal was rejected with the following observations by the Commissioner (Appeals) under an order dated 29.9.06:
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made in the Appeal Memorandum as also the oral submissions advanced at the time of personal hearing. I have also called the case file from Drawback Section and have perused the same. On perusal of the case file, it is seen that the file was also put up to Commissioner. The then Commissioner (Export has rejected the party’s request for reconstruction as proof of export under drawback claim/original copies of shipping bills were not available. The appellants have claimed to have submitted all the original documents at the time of filing of drawback claim in 1991. They have produced copy of Bank Realisation certificate as proof of realisation of export proceeds. There appears to be some genuineness in the claim of the appellant. However, there is neither any proof available in the case file nor have the appellant submitted any proof before me showing that goods have been exported under claim for drawback. In the absence of any proof of export being made under claim for drawback, the appeal cannot be allowed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
The present appeal is directed against that order.
4. The submission of the appellant is that revenue is trying to cover up its own failure. It is being pointed out that all the required papers had been filed in 1990 itself; but those records were misplaced/lost in the Customs House. It is also being pointed out that export remains established from the bank certificate covering price realization, copy of airway bills and other documents. Learned Counsel would emphasise that the appellant’s bonafides and repeated efforts to satisfy the Customs authorities has been admitted in the impugned order itself. The contention is that after holding that the claim is genuine it was not proper or correct on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny the drawback to the appellant.
5. Learned DR would point out that according to procedure, the drawback claim can be sanctioned only if it is established through relevant and prescribed documents and the authorities had no option but to reject the claim in the absence of the supporting documents.
6. Records of the case clearly establish the basis of the claim. The authorities are not denying the export or the filing of required documents before them. The claim had been filed and taken on record by the Customs authorities. Drawback is a reimbursement towards taxes borne on exported goods. This is a normal requirement since exports are internationally taking place without domestic taxes being loaded to export prices. The appellant’s claim also remains established through bank realization certificate and other documents. In such circumstances, denial of the claim, merely for the reason that Customs authorities have lost the relevant papers would be unjust and irresponsible.
7. In view of what is stated above, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
Dictated and pronounced in open Court.