Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Others against the Judgment and Order dated March 20, 1992 passed by the learned Judge taking writ matters.
(2.) By a writ application, the respondent Hindustan Malleable & Forgings Ltd. claimed refund of sum of Rs. 1,92,828.29 as an amount of drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent-writ petitioner claimed this amount by way of drawback as the imported goods were re-exported, inasmuch as the said goods were found defective and, therefore, the writ petitioner claimed refund of duty paid on the imported goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim for refund of the said amount on the ground that the goods which were re-exported were not properly identified and the respondent-writ petitioner failed to establish an identification of the re-exported goods before claiming a drawback under Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the identity for the re-exported goods with reference to the import documents had not been established and as such the claim by the respondent writ petitioner merited rejection. 'From the said Order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, being the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Customs Office, Calcutta, and the Appellate Authority found that there was no doubt that the goods which were exported back to the supplier were nothing but re-exportation of defective parts and according to the Appellate Authority, the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to a claim on this case. On the question of value of the consignments, the Appellate Authority observed that the reference to the value of the consignments at the time of exportation was based on a suspicion that the value of the consignments had deteriorated after it has been imported. The Appellate Authority also found that the export valuation was to be recorded in this context as equivalent to the goods which were supplied in lieu thereof, i.e., in lieu of the imported articles, and the Appellate Authority also found that Section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable. The Appellate Authority concerned ultimately found that the goods were defective and the same were re-exported. As such according to the Appellate Authority, the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to the full benefit of the drawback on the original value. The Appellate Authority with this observation allowed the appeal.
(3.) From this order, the appellants before us filed a revision application before the Central Government. The Central Government rejected the revision application. While rejecting the revision application, the Central Government observed that the drawings produced during the personal hearing indicated the exact location of the defective components exported by the respondent-writ petitioner and that from the description of the goods imported a co-relation could be established to prove that the components received subsequently as replacements are the components for the main machine imported originally by the respondent-writ petitioner. The Central Government found that the respondent-writ petitioner would be entitled to drawback claim and also found that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was correct in law.;