AD-I Banks Can Grant Extension For Export Drawback Claims; RBI’s Direct Approval Not Mandatory: Kerala High Court
The Kerala Excessive Court docket acknowledged that AD-I banks licensed by RBI can grant extension for export downside claims, RBI’s direct approval not obligatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. acknowledged that the Grasp Round printed on this regard signifies that it isn’t mandatory that extension ought to come from the Reserve Financial institution of India itself because the AD-I financial institution are licensed to grant such extension.
In this case, the assessee/petitioner is engaged within the export of clothes to numerous international locations. The assessee has filed the petition, being aggrieved by order, by which the revision petition filed by the assessee towards the order declining the drawbacks claimed by the assessee for the exports made by him by means of two delivery invoice had been declined.
The assessee exported sure objects as per the delivery payments. The declare for downside for the exports made as per the aforesaid delivery payments had been declined by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/3rd respondent.
As per the Deputy Commissioner of Customs the quantities had been acquired by the assessee after the interval stipulated underneath Part 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 learn with Rule 16A of Central Customs and Excise Duties and Service Tax Downside Guidelines, 1995.
Even although an enchantment was filed difficult the mentioned order, it culminated so as which was challenged in a revision petition. The identical culminated within the impugned order.
The assessee submitted that the authorities rejected the declare of the assessee primarily underneath the impression that the extension of the time is required to be obtained from the Reserve Financial institution of India itself.
The assessee identified with particular reference to the Grasp Round issued in this regard, that the extension will be made by the AD class I financial institution as properly.
The division produced paperwork that are issued by the Directorate Normal of Overseas Commerce, whereby, it’s particularly talked about that the date of realization of the cash by the financial institution was on 13.06.2016 and there aren’t any paperwork to ascertain that there was certainly an extension of time as permitted in Rule 16A both by the Reserve Financial institution of India or by the AD-I Financial institution.
The bench agreed with the assessee that regardless that Rule 16A particularly refers to the extension of the interval by the RBI, the Grasp Round printed on this regard signifies that the RBI licensed the AD-I Banks to grant such extension for the aim of claiming the advantage of downside.
The bench acknowledged that going by Grasp Round, it isn’t mandatory that extension ought to come from the Reserve Financial institution of India itself because the AD-I financial institution are licensed to grant such extension. Subsequently, the query as as to whether the receipt of the quantity was based mostly on extension as contemplated underneath Part 16A is a matter which requires to be thought-about.
In view of the above, the bench quashed the impugned order and directed the division to rethink the declare of the assessee and take a recent resolution after contemplating all of the paperwork.
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO.5495 OF 2023
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: M. Balagopal, R. Sreejith and R. Devika
Counsel for Respondent/ Division: P.R. Sreejith
