Pranav B Prem

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has held in a significant pronouncement that the proceedings undertaken under Rules 16 and 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 are in the nature of execution proceedings and therefore cannot be used as a vehicle to alter, reassess, or otherwise modify the declared Free on Board (FOB) value or any other parameter recorded in the shipping bills that had already been assessed and accepted by the customs authorities at the time of export.

Also Read: Distribution Among Financial Creditors Should Be Based On Pro Rata Basis As Per Vote Share: NCLAT New Delhi

Background

The appellant, Simran Exports, was engaged in the export of readymade garments and had exported consignments having a declared FOB value of ₹1,06,84,417 on October 24, 2009. Based on the declared value, the appellant had claimed and was granted duty drawback in accordance with the prevailing schedule of rates. Subsequently, however, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation on the allegation that the exported garments were overvalued with the intent of availing ineligible drawback benefits, contending that the goods were of inferior quality and had been over-invoiced to inflate export proceeds.

Following the investigation, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner; thereafter, the Additional Commissioner of Customs passed an order confiscating the goods exported under eight shipping bills under Sections 113(d) and 113(i) read with Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods had already been exported and were therefore unavailable for confiscation, no redemption fine was imposed, but the authority directed recovery of the alleged ineligible drawback under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, along with interest, and further imposed penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Act.

Appellant’s Submissions

The appellant contended that the drawback had been correctly disbursed on the basis of shipping bills that had already undergone customs processing and assessment, and further asserted that since export proceeds were fully realized and Bank Realisation Certificates (BRCs) had been duly issued by the authorized dealer bank, the recovery initiated under Rules 16 and 16A was without jurisdiction. The appellant emphasized that Rule 16 contemplates recovery of erroneously granted drawback, whereas Rule 16A applies in cases of non-realization of export proceeds; however, neither rule authorizes the customs authorities to reassess the value of goods or modify the shipping bill after exportation has been completed and proceeds have been realized.

Department’s Contentions

On the other hand, the revenue contended that the appellant had procured inferior quality goods locally at low prices and had deliberately over-invoiced the exports to claim higher drawback than permissible; accordingly, it was argued that the recovery of drawback, along with interest and penalty, was fully justified under Rules 16 and 16A, as the appellant’s conduct amounted to fraudulent misdeclaration of value.

Tribunal’s Observations

The Bench observed that once the goods have been exported after the assessment of the shipping bill, the assessment can be altered or modified only through specific mechanisms provided under the Customs Act—namely, by an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128, through issuance of a demand notice under Section 28, finalization of a provisional assessment under Section 18, amendment of documents under Section 149, or correction of clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 154. The Tribunal noted that none of these statutory avenues had been invoked in the present case, and therefore, the authorities could not have indirectly modified the value of the exported goods through proceedings under Rules 16 or 16A, which are limited to the recovery of amounts erroneously paid.

The Bench further held that since the BRCs issued by the bank had neither been cancelled nor modified, the remittances corresponding to the invoices must be deemed to have been received in full, thereby confirming realization of export proceeds in accordance with law; consequently, there was no scope for recovery of the drawback. In a significant observation, the Tribunal clarified that goods that have already been exported cannot be treated as “export goods” within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Customs Act, and therefore, Section 113, which governs confiscation of export goods, has no application once exportation has been completed.

Also Read: NCLAT New Delhi: Adjudicating Authority Cannot Resort To Section 60(5) IBC When Ingredients Of Section 66 Are Not Established

In light of the above findings, the CESTAT concluded that the proceedings initiated under Rules 16/16A were wholly misconceived and beyond the scope of those provisions, as they are purely execution proceedings meant for enforcing recovery of drawback wrongly paid and not for reassessment or alteration of shipping bill values. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and held that no penalty under Section 114 could be sustained in the absence of any finding of deliberate misdeclaration.

Appearance

Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: Ms. Garima Agarwal

Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Shri Shiv Shankar

Cause Title: M/s Simran Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi

Case No: Customs Appeal 50268 Of 2021

Coram: Justice Dilip Gupta (President), P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member)