Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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

 

Latest Legal News