LAWS(P&H)-2019-10-74

NARULA TOOLS INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER

Decided On October 18, 2019
Narula Tools International Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner through instant Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of show cause notice dated 18.12.2018 whereby declared Free on Board (for short 'FOB') value of the goods already exported has been proposed to be rejected and drawback disbursed post export of goods has been demanded under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (for short 'Drawback Rules, 1995').

(2.) The few facts emanating from record are that the Petitioners/Manufacturer Exporter during the period 2013-2015 exported scaffolding items claiming benefit of duty drawback as permissible under Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, which were framed vide Notification No. 37/95-CUS (NT) dated 26.05.1995, in exercise of power conferred by Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 (for short '1962 Act'), Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994.

(3.) The Petitioner realized export proceeds, however Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against the Petitioner alleging that Petitioner is fraudulently availing duty drawback by grossly overvaluing the goods in the export documents. The DRI searched various premises of the Petitioner on 25.4.2015 and concluded that Petitioner had mis-declared value of goods which were exported upto March' 2015. On the basis of investigation conducted by DRI, Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana i.e. Respondent No. 2 issued impugned Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2018 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why declared FOB value of exported goods should not be rejected in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 (for short 'Valuation Rules, 2007') read with Section 14 of the 1962 Act and re-determined in terms of Rules 6 & 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2007. The Petitioner was further called upon to show cause as to why duty drawback should not be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995.