Deemed Export Entitles Refund of Duty Drawback with Interest: Supreme Court

Share:
airport fundamental Election Supreme v 300A Hindu Supreme Court Accident proceedings Medical property bail 196 506 Date of Decision: May 16, 2024 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors. Evidence Punjab Courts Act 144 CPC Compliance Court Father Timely Evidence Police Dowry condonatioMurder n Bail Bail Insurance Crime Evidence © All Rights Reserved @ LAWYER E NEWS *Disclaimer: Always compare with the original copy of judgment from the official website. punishment Technical criminal Homebuyers SARFAESI Judgment Telangana Bail Order murderWorkman Evidence National Property LPG Employee Report suit Suicide Notice Rape Electoral Bond Breach Article 142 bail duty custody skills legal 2025 Summoning recovery Constitutional Bail property nclt army validity police governance evidence teachers bail property jurisdiction evidence Possession amendment life land evidence causes degree absence

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court, affirming that M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Is entitled to receive interest on the delayed refund of duty drawback under the ‘deemed export’ scheme. The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India against the High Court’s judgment.

The case, titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 7238 of 2009), was pronounced on 5th February 2024. The judgment critically examined the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Exim Policy of 1992-1997 and 1997-2002.

Background of the Case:

M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons, a class-I contractor specializing in civil contract works, was involved in the Koyna Hydro Electric Power Project, Maharashtra, financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The company claimed duty drawback under the ‘deemed export’ scheme of the Exim Policy, which was initially rejected by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, after various representations and a decision by the Policy Interpretation Committee, the DGFT approved the duty drawback in 2002, which was paid in 2003.

Controversy and Legal Battle:

The primary contention arose regarding the entitlement of interest on the delayed payment of duty drawback. The respondent approached the High Court seeking interest due to the delay in the refund, which was granted by the High Court. The Union of India appealed against this decision.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling:

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in the judgment, noted, “It is evident that supply of goods to the project in question by the respondent was a case of ‘deemed export’ and thus entitled to the benefit under the Duty Drawback Scheme.” The Court further observed that “respondent is entitled to refund of duty drawback as a deemed export under the Duty Drawback Scheme.” Upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court observed that the respondent was entitled to interest at the rate fixed under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, which at the relevant time was fifteen percent per annum.

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle of fairness in the administration of fiscal statutes and emphasizes the entitlement of interest on delayed refunds, marking a significant precedent in cases involving ‘deemed export’ under the Exim Policy.

 Date of Decision: 05 February 2024

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS M/S. B. T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM

Download Judgment

Share: