Impex Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd @APPELLANT@Hash Union Of India & Ors

The Court: The petitioner assails an order, passed by the revisional authority dated February 5, 2018. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that,

the impugned order is perverse. He refers to the pleadings at paragraphs 34 to 38 of the writ petition and submits that, the grounds on which, the

impugned order stands vitiated are specified therein. Essentially, he submits that, the authorities failed to take into consideration the independent test

reports.

The authorities failed to appreciate that, the wordings in the documents of import and export involved. The same goods were sought to be exported as

that imported. Moreover, in similar circumstances, the appellate authority allowed a consignment.Respondents are represented.

By the impugned order, the revisional authority concurred with the finding returned by the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority. The

petitioner imported High Carbon Ferro Manganese Fines on payment of customs duty from South Africa. The petitioner, thereafter, exported High

Carbon Ferro Manganese Fines to an entity in South Korea. The petitioner claimed drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The claim was rejected by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the ground that, the identity of the re-exported High Carbon Ferro Manganese

Fines could not be established with the imported High Carbon Ferro Manganese Fines on the basis of the documents submitted at the time of the

import and export. The petitioner preferred an appeal therefrom. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal after concurring with the findings

returned by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner filed a revisional application. The revisional application was heard on November

14, 2017 in presence of the representative of the petitioner.

The same grounds as that urged in the present writ petition were urged before the revisional authority. The revisional authority read Section 74 of the

Customs Act, 1962 and found that, three conditions were required to be satisfied. Those three conditions are as follows:-

(i) The imported goods should be capable of being easily identified.

(ii) Duty of Customs should be paid on the imported goods and the same should be exported within two years from the date of payment of duty on

imported goods and,

(iii) The exported goods should be identified with the imported goods to the satisfaction of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs.

He returned the finding that, the first two conditions stood satisfied. However, the third condition was not satisfied. According to him, all three

conditions were required to be satisfied for the petitioner to be entitled to the duty drawback claim. The impugned order deals with the order of the

adjudicating authority. It deals with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It finds that, the imported High Carbon Ferro Manganese Fines

contained 72.09% Manganese as the main ingredient while that of the shipping bills for the export was declared as 68% by the petitioner itself.

According to the petitioner, the export document shows that, the Manganese content is 68% minimum.

With respect, the same itself will indicate that, the quality was not that, as imported. Moreover, the test reports which were sought to be relied upon at

the behest of the petitioner before the adjudicating authority were disbelieved. The reasons for disbelieving the same have been stated by the

authorities. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to return a finding that the impugned order suffers from the vice of perversity. W.P. No. 487

of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs.