2014 (1) TMI 1457 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Claim of duty drawback - Held that - It was not justified in defence grounds by tine Respondent as to how the goods used on the dining table mat shall be handicraft. Facts of the case clearly suggest that fiction was created to claim higher drawback. Burden was on the assesse to prove that the goods squarely fall in the category of handicraft when onus of proof was discharged by Revenue bringing the goods to a different class. No reasons were on record to appreciate the decision of the learned Adjudicating Authority. But Adjudicating authority presumed that goods shall be governed by entry 702000090 for no rhyme or reason. Rule of classification needs reason to entertain a claim of higher rate of drawback and it is no one s right to take a benefit under law unless that is proved and backed by reason - appellant failed to substantiate its claim by good reasons - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of glass beads for drawback purposes.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the classification of glass beads for drawback purposes. The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority's wrong classification caused prejudice, enabling the respondent to claim a higher drawback. The glass beads were considered to be classifiable under a specific tariff item, and the Revenue argued that the mere use of glass beads does not change the classification of the goods. The adjudicating authority had erroneously held that the appearance of glass beads on both sides of a table altered their classification. The Revenue emphasized that the goods should be classified under a particular entry, and the respondent failed to justify how the goods used on a dining table mat could be considered handicraft.

In analyzing the adjudication order, the Commissioner referred to the rules for interpretation of the Customs Tariff to determine the appropriate classification. The Commissioner highlighted that specific descriptions should be preferred over general descriptions when classifying products. The entries in Chapter 70 of the Schedule of Drawback Rates were examined to support the classification decision. The adjudicating authority's presumption that the goods fell under a particular entry without sufficient justification was deemed unjustified. The burden of proof was on the assessee to demonstrate that the goods qualified as handicrafts for a higher drawback rate, and the Revenue successfully discharged this burden by bringing evidence to support a different classification.

Ultimately, the appellant failed to provide substantial reasons to support their claim, leading to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the Revenue had merit. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue. The judgment underscores the importance of providing valid reasons and evidence to support claims for higher benefits under the law, emphasizing the need for proper justification and reasoning in classification decisions related to drawback rates.