Circular No_510/06/2000-CX

2 · The Board has examined the matter: Itis clarified that in aforementioned case, the duty on export goods should be paid by applying market rate as it prevails at the time the duty is paid on such goods. Once value (in accordance with section 4 of the Central Excise Act; 1944) is determined and duty is paid, rebate has to be allowed equivalent to the duty paid. Board has already clarified in Circular No. 203/37/96-CX dated 26.4.96 that AR-4 value is to be determined under section 4 of the Central Excise Act; 1944 and this value is relevant for the purposes of rule 12 & rule 13. Thus, the duty element shown on AR-4 has to be rebated, if the jurisdictional Range officer certifies it to be correct There is no question of re-quantifying the amount of rebate by the rebate sanctioning authority by applying some other rate of exchange prevalent subsequent to the date on which the duty was paid. It is also clarified that the rebate sanctioning authority should not examine the correctness of assessment but should examine only the admissibility of rebate of the duty paid on the export goods covered by a claim. 3_ # the rebate sanctioning authority has reasons to believe that duty has been paid in excess than what should have been paid, he shall inform; after granting the rebate, the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner: The latter shall scrutinize the correctness of assessment and take necessary action; wherever necessary: In fact; the triplicate copy of AR-4 is meant for this purpose, which are to be scrutinized by the Range officers and then sent to rebate sanctioning authority with suitable endorsement: Since there is no need for reducing rebate, the question of taking of reaccredit in RG-23A Part-Il or RG-23C Part-Ildo not arise_