'If export proceeds not realised, you need to surrender RoDTEP benefit'

Under the duty drawback scheme, we are required to surrender proportionate or full amount of drawback taken, along with interest, in case of short realisation or non-realisation of export proceeds within the time allowed (original or extended) by the AD bank or RBI. Do we need to surrender RoDTEP scheme-related export benefits also in similar cases?
 

Yes. The MF (DR) Circular no. 23/2021-Cus dated September 30, 2021 makes it clear that duty credit allowed under the RoDTEP scheme is subject to realisation of sale proceeds within the period allowed by RBI. The detailed provisions are mentioned in conditions at Para 2(4), 2(6) and 2(7) of the notification No. 76/2021-Cus(NT) dated September 23, 2021. Para 5 of the said notification deals with the recovery of RoDTEP credit in case of short realistion or non-realisation of the export proceeds.
 

The Electronic Duty Credit Ledger Regulations, 2021 (notification no. 75/2021-Cus(NT) dated September 23, 2021) read with the said notification 76/2001-Cus also provides for the situations and manner of suspension or cancellation of duty credit or e-scrip, or recovery when duty credit allowed was in excess, or where export proceeds are not realised.
 

We had exported certain goods that were found defective by the buyer and so were returned to us. We cleared the re-imported consignment under the notification 158/95-Cus dated November 14, 1995, by giving a bond that after suitable repairs we will re-export the goods within six months from the date of re-import. However, we could not re-export the goods even after a further extension of six months, as the buyer did not want the goods. Now, can we ask the Customs to amend the bill of entry and treat the goods as cleared under the notification 45/2017-Cus dated June 30, 2017?
 

In the case of Rallis India Ltd. [2017 (358) ELT 285 (Tri. Mumbai)], the Tribunal said that the appellant re-imported exported goods claiming the notification no. 158/95-Cus and executed the bond and bank guarantee, but due to unavoidable reason could not re-export the said goods. Therefore, the appellant claimed the alternate exemption notification no. 94/96-Cus. There is no reason to deny the alternate exemption notification. If the importer fails to comply with the condition of the notification which was claimed at the time of import, the duty is required to be paid as per the rate applicable and as per any other notification, if available to the imported goods.
 

The Tribunal held that only because the notification was not claimed at the time of import and claimed later on, the legitimate exemption, which is otherwise available under the statute, cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Share Medical Care [2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC)], wherein it was held that alternate notification no. 65/88-Cus. should be allowed, if the exemption notification no. 64/88-Cus. claimed at the time of import is not admissible due to non-fulfilment of the post-import condition.