Export Duty Framework in India – Legal Provisions and Judicial Insights

Customs • Analysis

Export Duty in India
Export Duty is a type of tax or levy imposed by a country's government on goods and services that are shipped out of the country for sale in foreign markets. It is charged to regulate exports, control the movement of essential commodities, and generate revenue for the government.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Levy of Export Duty

1. Introduction

Export duty is a statutory levy imposed on specified goods leaving the customs territory of a country. It forms part of a nation’s tariff policy framework, aimed at regulating the outflow of critical resources, stabilizing domestic markets, and generating fiscal revenue. The imposition of export duty is dictated by statutory provisions, tariff schedules, and government notifications, making it a crucial element in international trade compliance.

2. Levy of Export Duty

The Government of India prioritizes export promotion, resulting in export duty being levied on a limited range of products. The specific articles subject to export duty are enumerated in the Second Schedule of the Customs Tariff.

As of 01-03-2011, this Schedule comprised 49 items, several of which have been subsequently exempted through government notifications.

R.K. Jain’s Customs Tariff of India | 2025-26

2.1 Rates of Export Duty

Export duty is applicable to a limited set of products as specified in the Second Schedule of the Customs Tariff. As of 01-03-2011, 49 items were listed, with several exemptions granted through notifications. The prevailing export duty rates as of 01-03-2011, were as follows:

  • De-oiled rice bran oil cakes – 10%
  • Luggage leather – 25%
  • Leather – 15%
  • Snake skins and raw fur lamb skins – 10%
  • Ferrous waste and scrap – 15%

2.2 Calculation of Export Duty

Export duty is computed based on the Free on Board (FOB) price. For instance, if the duty rate is 15% and the FOB price is Rs. 100, the duty payable is Rs. 15. Until 01-01-2009, Rs. 100 was considered a cum-duty price, and duty was calculated through back calculations. This methodology was clarified in MF(DR) Circular No. 19/2008-Cus, dated 10-11-2008.

The CESTAT ruling in Sesa Goa v. CCE (2012) 277 ELT 105 confirmed that the FOB price is not a cum-duty price. This was subsequently reaffirmed in CC v. Sesa Goa (2016) 334 ELT 62 (CESTAT) and CC v. Sesa Goa (2016) 335 ELT 745 (CESTAT).

2.3 Relevant Date for Export Duty Rate

Under Section 16 of the Customs Act, the applicable export duty rate is determined as per the date of the ‘Let Export’ order – Jindal Saw v. CC (2012) 280 ELT 135 (CESTAT).

2.4 Refund of Export Duty

Section 26 of the Customs Act provides for the refund of export duty under the following circumstances:

  • Goods are re-imported within one year.
  • The returned goods are not intended for resale.
  • The refund claim is submitted within six months from the date of customs clearance officer for re-importation.

R.K. Jain’s Customs Law Manual | 2025-26

2.5 Emergency Powers to Impose Export Duty

Section 8 of the Customs Tariff Act empowers the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule and impose or increase export duty through notifications, which must be presented before Parliament within 15 days.

2.6 Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment Not Applicable to Export Duty Refunds

Refunds of export duty under Section 26 are not subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment – CC v. Ken Agritech 2004 (166) ELT 339 (CESTAT) and Rajkumar Impex v. CC (2010) 253 ELT 795 (CESTAT SMB).

In fact, this is even otherwise clear from provisions of sections 18(5) and 27(2) of Customs Act

2.7 Export Duty on Supplies to SEZ

The Gujarat High Court, in Essar Steel v. UOI (2008) 232 ELT 617, held that export duty does not apply to goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). This position was reaffirmed in Essar Steel v. UOI (2010) 24 STT 121= 249 ELT 3 (Guj HC DB) and subsequently upheld in Shyamaraju & Co. v. UOI (2010) 256 ELT 183 (Karn HC) CCE v. Biocon Ltd. (2011) 267 ELT 28 (Karn HC DB)Tirupati Udyog v. UOI (2011) 272 ELT 209 (AP HC DB).

The decision was followed in Welspun Anjar Pipes v. UOI (2015) 323 ELT 130 (Guj HC DB) – departmental appeal dismissed by SC – 323 ELT A28.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
SFP Optical Transceivers Classifiable Under 8517 79 90 – BCD Exempt | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 16, 2025

PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade Classifiable Under CTH 3904 21 10 | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 12, 2025

HC Denies Bail in Customs Fraud Causing Major Revenue Loss

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 11, 2025

EOU Not Eligible for Duty-Free Import on Capital Goods Moved to DTA

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 10, 2025

Govt. Extends CVD on Textured Tempered Glass Imports from Malaysia

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 9, 2025

Deptt. Can’t Appeal Before CESTAT Against Orders Passed Under Regulation 19 of CBLR 2018 | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 8, 2025

Lithium-Ion Battery Recognised as Distinct Product Concessional Duty Exemption Upheld | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 6, 2025

CESTAT Allows Customs Exemption for Power Project Imports on Ratified Certificate

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 5, 2025

FSSAI Norms Don’t Apply to Export Goods Unless FTP Specifies | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 4, 2025

HC Grants Bail as Co-Accused’s Custodial Confession Inadmissible Under Evidence Act

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

December 3, 2025