2009 (4) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration in export under DFRC Scheme, nature of goods exported, consideration of CRCL report, relevance of common parlance theory, remand to Appellate Authority

Mis-declaration in export under DFRC Scheme:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that there was no mis-declaration by the respondent. The appellant exported PVC granules instead of PVC profile, violating the DFRC Scheme requirement. The Revenue argued that the respondent failed to export PVC profile against the raw material allowed to be imported, which led to a reversible order by the appellate authority. Samples from the consignments were extracted to verify the declaration under the DFRC Scheme, and the CRCL laboratory report was crucial in determining the composition of the goods. The Revenue emphasized the need for accurate declaration and adherence to the norms set by the Export-Import Policy.

Nature of goods exported:
The Revenue contended that the goods exported were granules, not profiles, as highlighted in the adjudicating authority's findings. They argued that a profile cannot be chips and vice versa, emphasizing that the goods did not meet the specified norms under the HSN Classification. The Appellate Authority was criticized for focusing on the manufacturing process rather than the actual goods exported, disregarding the composition details provided by the CRCL report and the norms prescribed under the HSN Classification.

Consideration of CRCL report:
The CRCL laboratory report played a significant role in determining the composition of the exported goods. The Revenue stressed the importance of comparing the CRCL report's findings with the prescribed norms to ascertain the accuracy of the declaration. However, the Appellate Authority was accused of overlooking these crucial points and basing the decision on irrelevant considerations, leading to a flawed judgment.

Relevance of common parlance theory:
The Appellate Tribunal highlighted that the common parlance theory was not a reliable guide when technical specifications and criteria were available for determining the nature of goods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Appellate Authority to consider the safeguard measures and tests available, as argued by the Revenue, to make an informed decision regarding the nature and character of the exported goods.

Remand to Appellate Authority:
In light of the observations made, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for a thorough reconsideration. The Appellate Authority was directed to take into account the Revenue's arguments, grounds of appeal, CRCL report, and relevant documents cited. The Appellate Authority was instructed to provide a fair hearing to the respondent, analyze all issues raised by the Revenue, and reach a rational conclusion regarding the nature of the goods and the accuracy of the declaration. The Tribunal stressed the importance of expeditious disposal of the case and directed the respondent to appear before the Appellate Authority promptly.