RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed ROM application for modification of Final Order No. 409/2005, dated 17 -3 -2005. The appellants had filed drawback claim in respect of 22 shipping bills. The Commissioner has held that the appellants are not eligible for drawback. After detailed consideration, this Bench had agreed with the Commissioners findings as there was no infirmity in the adjudication order. In the ROM application, it is stated that after the order was passed, the Board has issued a clarificatory Circular No. 19/2005 -Cus., dated 21 -3 -2005 explaining the rationale behind the fixation of All Industry Rate of drawback. The said Circular clarifies that the fixation of All Industry Rate of drawback is based on a concept of average duty incidence for the industry and the actual duty incidence by individual exports is not required to be seen. It is further stated that the Circular laid down that it is not open for the field officers to question as to how the rate has been determined in the case of individual export goods and to probe whether certain exempted inputs have been used in the manufacture of the same. On specific query from the Bench as to whether the said Circular has been placed before the Bench while passing the order, the learned Counsel fairly submits that the said Circular was not placed before the Bench as the Board issued the Circular only on 21 -3 -2005. He prays that in the light of the clarification issued by the CBEC vide its Circular dated 21 -3 -2005, the Tribunal Final Order No. 409/2005, dated 17 -3 -2005 in the matter is required to be recalled and the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for re -consideration.

(2.) THE learned SDR seriously opposes the prayer and submits that admittedly there is no mistake in the order. The Tribunal has independently considered all the pleas and a detailed order has been passed. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the ROM application.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we notice that all the arguments advanced in the matter were considered and a speaking Final Order [No. 409/2005, dated 17 -3 -2005] has been passed. It is not a case of the Counsel that any important argument was missed while disposing of the appeal. Admittedly the Circular was not placed before the Bench as it was not in existence. The learned Counsel also admits that he cannot say that there was a mistake apparent in the Final Order. There is no merit in the ROM application and the same is rejected.