Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) At the hearing of the writ petition, learned Advocate for the petitioner limits the relief sought for by the writ petitioner to the treatment of inner lining used by the petitioner in the gloves exported by the petitioner.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is entitled to duty drawback on the exports of the gloves. The authorities had been granting such duty drawback over a considerable period of time. The customs authorities are seeking to deny duty drawback to the petitioner on the export of gloves referring to Rule 3 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and, particularly, to Rule 3(1) second proviso clause [ii] thereof. He submits that, such provision is not attracted in the facts of the present case. He draws the attention of the Court to the shipping bill and submits that, the petitioner had declared in the shipping bill that, it had imported the specified number of cut inner lining to the gloves free of cost and free of duty. This aspect has not been considered by the authorities why seeking to deny a duty drawback claimed by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the Department submits that, the petitioner is not entitled to duty drawback in view of the provisions of Rule 3 (1) second proviso clause [ii] of the Rules of 1995.;