JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan J. Union of India and the other respondents in W.P.(C)No. 21315/2005 are in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.5.2010 of the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition. As per the judgment appealed against, Ext.P9 order passed by the second appellant has been quashed. The appellants have been directed to calculate the amount of drawback available to the respondent in respect of the goods exported by them. The writ petition was filed in the following circumstances: 2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture and export of insulated copper strips and rectangular paper covered conductors. According to the respondent, the two raw materials that go into the manufacture of the above products are insulation paper and copper. The insulation paper required for their manufacture is imported by the respondent. However, the second ingredient copper that goes into the manufacture of their products is procured indigenously from local producers. Since the products exported by the respondent contained copper the respondent claimed drawback in respect of the said component under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Customs Act' for short). Section 75 provides for claiming drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture of goods that are exported. Sub-section (IA) of section 75 reads as follows: "Where it appears to the Central Government that the quantity of a particular material imported into India is more than the total quantity of like material that has been used in the goods manufactured, processed or on which any operation has been carried out in India and exported outside India, then, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that so much of the material as is contained in the goods exported shall, for the purpose of sub-section (1), be deemed to be imported material." In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 75 (IA) a notification dated 30.5.1991 has been issued by the Central Government, which is evidenced herein by Ext.P7 in the writ petition. The table that is appended to Ext.P7 lists the materials in respect of which the drawback could be claimed. Copper has been listed as one of the items at Sl.No.21, in Ext.P7. The respondent claimed drawback in respect of the copper content in their manufactured product on the basis of Ext.P7. The table that is appended to Ext.P7 lists the materials in respect of which the drawback could be claimed. Copper has been listed as one of the items at Sl.No.21, in Ext.P7. The respondent claimed drawback in respect of the copper content in their manufactured product on the basis of Ext.P7. They approached the second respondent for fixation of the rate at which they were entitled to claim drawback, under Rule 6 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). The second respondent considered the contentions of the respondent and by Ext.P9 order, held that they were not entitled to any drawback, as claimed by them. It was aggrieved by Ext.P9 that the respondent had filed the writ petition. 3. The writ petition was contested by the appellants. A counter affidavit was filed taking up a contention that, the respondent had not imported copper or paid any customs duty. They had procured copper in the indigenous market after paying excise duty. They have got credit for the duty paid by them under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Inasmuch as no customs duty was paid by them on copper, it was contented that they were not entitled to claim drawback under Section 75 (IA) of the Customs Act. It was also contented that, the concept of deemed import was intended only to fix the all industry rates of duty drawback under Section 3 of the Rules which are calculated on an average basis by taking into account the average quantity and value of materials used in the manufacture of export products. The respondent had applied under Rule 6 of the Rules for fixation of the drawback rate, commonly referred to as the brand rate of duty drawback, which is dependent on the actual duty incidence suffered on materials used in the manufacture of export produces. Such incidental duty had to be reflected in the duty payment documents. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent was not entitled to claim the drawback. 4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that the contention put forwarded on behalf of the appellants was not warranted by the language of Section 75 (IA) of the Customs Act or the language of Ext.P7 notification. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent was not entitled to claim the drawback. 4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that the contention put forwarded on behalf of the appellants was not warranted by the language of Section 75 (IA) of the Customs Act or the language of Ext.P7 notification. The contention that, application of brand rates was available only in cases where customs duty was actually paid was also rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed, quashing Ext.P9. The appellants are aggrieved by the said judgment. 5. According to Adv. Mr. P.R. Sreejith who appears for the appellants, the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of insulated copper strips and rectangular paper covered conductors, for the production of which copper rods are used as raw material. According to the learned counsel, copper imported in its raw form or concentrated copper or as copper scrap are converted into copper rods that come in rolls. The said manufacturing process is undertaken by other manufacturers from whom the copper rods are purchased by the respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, the process undertaken by the respondent is merely to reduce such copper rods to the specifications insisted upon by their customers and to insulate them by either using paper or other materials. Inasmuch as copper rods themselves are manufactured products, it is pointed out that copper is not one of the raw materials used in the manufacture of their products by the respondent. The notification Ext.P7 applies only to cases where copper itself is used as a raw material. It is further contented that, copper is actually imported by the manufacturers of copper rods by paying customs duty or procured indigenously. It is only in the hands of such manufacturers that copper would qualify as a raw material. Since the respondent has procured copper from indigenous suppliers and had availed CENVAT credit for the Central Excise duty paid on the said produce they are not entitled to any further incentives. It is pointed out that, the respondent has no right to claim any benefit for the customs duty that they have not paid. 6. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that, copper is a major ingredient in the product that is exported by them. It is pointed out that, the respondent has no right to claim any benefit for the customs duty that they have not paid. 6. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that, copper is a major ingredient in the product that is exported by them. Though it is not in dispute that copper rods are being used by them as one of the inputs in their manufacturing process, the same according to them is procured indigenously. It is to promote such indigenous procurement that the concept of deemed import has been introduced by Section 75 (IA) of the Customs Act. In the manufacturing activity of the respondent, the indigenously procured copper is consumed and is exported out of India as their finished product, earning valuable foreign exchange for the country. It is to promote such activities that the notification Ext.P7 has been issued. Since the respondent's product does not answer the all industry rates under Rule 3 of the Rules, they had approached the second respondent for having the rate of their drawback fixed under Rule 6 of the Rules. However, the second appellant by Ext.P9 held that the respondent was not entitled to claim drawback at all. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the CENVAT Credit availed by them represents only the additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, whereas the drawback claimed by them is in respect of the basic customs duty leviable under Section 2 of the said Act, to which they are entitled in view of the concept of deemed import introduced by Ext.P7. Therefore, Ext.P9 has, according to the learned counsel, been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge and set aside. It is contented that, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment in appeal. 7. Heard. 8. As already noticed above, Section 75 (IA) confers power on the Central Government to issue a notification in a case where : (i) the quantity of a particular material imported into India is more than the total quantity of like material that has been used in the goods manufactured, processed or on which any operation has been carried out in India; and (ii) exported outside India. (iii) The Central Government may, in such cases declare by notification in the official gazette (iv) that so much of the material as is contained in the goods exported shall, for the purpose of sub-section (1) be deemed to be imported material; The power therefore is to declare through a notification to be published in the official gazette that the material contained in a particular category of goods exported was imported. The concept of deemed import is to be applied in cases where the conditions stipulated by Section 75 (IA) stands satisfied. It is on the basis of such a satisfaction that Ext.P7 notification has been issued. Ext.P7 notification is not under challenge. The opening portion of Ext.P7 is reproduced below: "Drawback on Imported Material Used in the Goods to be Exported In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (IA) of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares that the whole of the material specified in the 'Table annexed hereto as is contained in the goods manufactured in India and exported outside India shall, for the purpose of sub- section (1) of the said Section 75, be deemed to be imported material." (emphasis supplied) What has been declared by Ext.P7 notification is that, "the whole of the material specified in the table annexed hereto as is contained in the goods manufactured in India and exported outside India" shall be deemed to be imported material. Therefore, the deeming provision is intended to apply to the whole of the material contained in the goods manufactured. It is clear from the wording of the notification that, the emphasis is on the content of the manufactured products and not on the nature of the raw material used. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that unless copper in its raw form had been used as a raw material by the respondent the benefit of drawback could not be claimed, has to fail. Ext.P7 notification does not give any importance to the nature of the raw material that is consumed in the manufacture. What is important is the content of the article in the manufactured product. It is not in dispute that, copper is contained in the manufactured product of the respondent. Therefore, going by the terms of Ext.P7 the respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of Ext.P7. What is important is the content of the article in the manufactured product. It is not in dispute that, copper is contained in the manufactured product of the respondent. Therefore, going by the terms of Ext.P7 the respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of Ext.P7. In other words, in terms of Ext.P7 the respondent is entitled to claim that the whole of the copper content in its manufactured product should be treated as "deemed to be imported material", for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act. Availing of the CENVAT credit also does not disentitle the respondent from claiming the above benefit since there is not such restriction in Ext.P7. 9. The other question that remains is to consider whether it is the "all industry rates stipulated by Rule 3 of the Rules or what is commonly called "the brand rates " to be fixed under Rule 6 of the Rules, that should apply in computing the rate of drawback applicable to the respondent. It is not in dispute that, no rate under Rule 3 of the Rules has been fixed in respect of the products manufactured and exported by the respondent. Therefore, the rate applicable to the respondent would have to be determined separately under Rule 6 of the Rules. In Ext.P9, the second respondent has proceeded on the basis that fixation of the rate under Rule 6 should be only on the basis of the actual customs duty suffered by the product. We have already held that the said reasoning is not sustainable in view of the clear wording in Ext.P7 notification. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the rate of drawback applicable to the respondent's product would have to be fixed in exercise of the powers under Rule 6 of the Rules. The learned Single Judge has directed the second respondent to fix the rate accordingly. We do not find any infirmity in the said direction either. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.