The expression “any other similar scheme” is unclear because the amendment does not identify any such scheme. I am not aware of any separate similar scheme notified under those rules. Mere similarity to drawback is insufficient: the scheme must also be laid down under the specified drawback rules. The intention may be to accommodate introduction of a similar scheme under those rules in future. The words “as amended from time to time” indicate that possibility, but this remains an inference rather than an expressly stated purpose.
The amended rule requires the SEZ Unit, Developer or Domestic Tariff Area supplier to claim drawback from the Specified Officer, retaining the disclaimer requirement where the supplier claims. Does this displace the procedure under CBIC Circular Nos. 43/2007-Cus. dated December 5, 2007, 39/2010-Cus. dated October 15, 2010, and 24/2017-Cus. dated June 30, 2017, directing DTA suppliers to their jurisdictional Customs authorities?
In my view, the amended rule prescribes the SEZ Specified Officer as the authority before whom the DTA supplier must claim drawback. It does not expressly provide two alternative routes. Earlier administrative circulars cannot prevail to the extent that they conflict with the amended statutory rule. However, leaving those instructions unreconciled creates practical uncertainty. CBIC should promptly clarify the revised filing and disbursement procedure, brand-rate fixation, treatment of earlier supplies and pending claims.
We are an EOU. Can we send our duty-free imported raw materials directly from the port to a job worker and receive the processed goods for further processing and export?
No. The imported raw materials must first reach the EOU and be accounted for before being sent for job work. Paragraph 3 of CBEC Circular No. 67/98-Cus. dated September 14, 1998, requires prior receipt and accounting of imported or indigenous raw materials at the unit. Paragraph 6 of Circular No. 54/2004-Cus. dated October 13, 2004, expressly prohibits sending goods directly to the job worker without bringing them into the unit. Condition 3(a) of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated March 31, 2003, requires bringing the goods into the unit and using them for the specified purpose. Condition 3(b) requires proper accounting for their receipt, storage and utilisation. Although Rule 7 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules, 2022 permits job work, it does not override the exemption conditions. Rule 3(1)(g) requires job work to be consistent with the notification. Rule 11(2) preserves the importer’s responsibility to ensure that goods are used for the purposes provided in that notification. These provisions support compliance with the exemption conditions; they do not independently dispense with the requirement of prior receipt at the EOU.
 "Port cargo, port, trade, cargo")