2016 (11) TMI 1524 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - the Revenue, in normal course, without having challenged the certificate issued by EPCH declaring the goods as handicrafts and without having substantial evidence raised the objection that the subject goods were not the Handicrafts - CBEC Circular No. 3/2010-Cus., dated 12-2-2010 - Held that - there were no mala fides and no adverse motive on the part of the appellant claiming benefit of the N/N. 21/2002-(Customs). Therefore, Revenue s stand that goods were not handicrafts cannot be substantiated and is without any basis - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., recovery of amount, penalty imposition, challenge to certificate issued by EPCH, classification of goods as 'handicrafts', reliance on CBEC Circular, comparison with similar Tribunal decision, entitlement to duty drawback.

Denial of Benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.:
The appellant, a manufacturer of 'handicrafts', appealed against the denial of benefits under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. by the Commissioner. The Revenue challenged the classification of goods as 'handicrafts' despite the certificate issued by EPCH. The Customs issued a Show Cause Notice questioning the eligibility for duty-free imports. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue lacked substantial evidence to support their objection.

Challenge to Certificate Issued by EPCH:
The Revenue disputed the certificate issued by EPCH declaring the goods as 'handicrafts'. Despite not consulting EPCH directly, the Customs raised objections based on their assessment. The appellant cited a CBEC Circular emphasizing the acceptance of EPCH certificates unless approved by the Commissioner of Customs after discussions with the certificate-issuing authority.

Classification of Goods as 'Handicrafts':
The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'handicrafts' and compared the case to a similar Tribunal decision. In the referenced case, the Tribunal emphasized the visual appeal and artistic value of the goods, indicating that the goods were indeed 'handicrafts'. The absence of expert opinions from Customs officers and the appellant's registration with the export promotion council supported the classification of goods as 'handicrafts'.

Reliance on CBEC Circular and Tribunal Decision:
The appellant relied on a CBEC Circular and a previous Tribunal decision to support their claim that the goods qualified as 'handicrafts'. The Tribunal noted the lack of mala fides in the appellant's actions and the potential entitlement to duty drawback if the goods were classified as 'furniture', which would have exceeded the Revenue's total demand.

Entitlement to Duty Drawback:
The appellant highlighted that if the goods were classified as 'furniture', they would be entitled to a duty drawback exceeding the Revenue's demand. This argument indicated the absence of malicious intent on the appellant's part and supported the contention that the goods were indeed 'handicrafts'. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.