Refund-Claim of Countervailing duty as Duty Drawback admissible only where inputs that suffered countervailing duties actually used in goods exported
F.No.609/97/2017-DBK
Government of India
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs
Drawback Division
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017
To
Principal Chief Commissioners/ Principal Directors General,
Chief Commissioners/ Directors General,
Principal Commissioners and Commissioners,
all under CBEC.
Sir/Madam,
Attention is invited to the Circular Nos. 106/95-Cus dated 11.10.1995 and 23/2015- Cus dated 29.9.2015 regarding refund/claim of Anti-Dumping Duty and Safeguard Duties as Duty Drawback respectively.
2. With respect to Countervailing Duties which are leviable under section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, the Board clarifies that these are rebatable as Drawback in terms of Section 75 of the Customs Act. Since Countervailing Duties are not taken into consideration while fixing All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback, the Drawback of such Countervailing Duties can be claimed under an application for Brand Rate under Rule 6 or Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and/or the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017, as the case may be. This would necessarily mean that drawback shall be admissible only where the inputs that suffered Countervailing Duties were actually used in the goods exported as confirmed by the verification conducted for fixation of Brand Rate.
3. Where imported goods subject to Countervailing Duties are exported out of the country as such, then the Drawback payable under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 would also include the incidence of Countervailing Duties as part of total duties paid, subject to fulfilment of other conditions.
4. Suitable Public Notice and Standing Order should be issued for guidance of the trade and officers.
Yours faithfully,
(Dipin Singla)
OSD (Drawback)
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…