2015 (9) TMI 615 - CGOVT - Customs

Drawback Claim under S.no. 48026210 export of plain paper cut in size - Quality of goods Respondents claimed drawback under Sl. No. 48026210 @ 5.5% Lower authority classified export goods under drawback S. No. 4802 0099 and allowed eligible drawback of 1% and not 5.5% as claimed by respondents Commissioner(A) allowed drawback @ 5.5%, in favour respondent Held that - original authority held that goods are not of prime quality and hence, classifiable under drawback S. 48020099 @ 1% only Benefit of drawback @ 5.5% is available to those sheets cut to sizes only from prime quality paper CPPRI to whom samples were sent for testing, neither confirmed that goods were prime or otherwise Nature of finished goods as prime or otherwise is decided on basis of physical, chemical and other critical parameters of finished goods and not by nature of raw material used for manufacture of such finished goods There are no categorical evidences brought on record that impugned goods are not prime Report of CPPRI is inconclusive Further, onus was on department and not on respondent, to prove nature of goods Nothing substantial could be brought on record to prove that goods were other than prime in nature Therefore, respondents are rightly eligible for drawback @ 5.5% Decided against revenue.

Issues: Classification of export goods for drawback entitlement at different rates based on quality assessment.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The case involved the classification of export goods for drawback entitlement at different rates based on the quality assessment. The respondent had filed shipping bills for the export of plain paper cut in size, claiming drawback under a specific serial number.

2. Quality Assessment: The Shed Officers examined the goods and found discrepancies in quality as declared in the export documents. Samples were sent to the Central Pulp & Paper Research Institute for testing. The institute reported that the paper did not meet the criteria for "prime quality" as per Indian standards and requested more details for testing.

3. Manufacturer's Statement: The actual manufacturer of the goods stated that the paper was produced using a combination of waste paper and indigenous raw materials, passing through various stages to ensure prime quality. The lower authority classified the goods under a different drawback serial number and allowed a lower rate of drawback.

4. Appeals and Grounds: The respondent appealed the decision, which was decided in their favor by the Commissioner (A). The department filed a Revision Application citing various grounds, including the definition of "prime quality" and the lack of valid testing reports from accredited laboratories.

5. Government's Findings: The government reviewed the case records and found that the applicant had claimed a higher drawback rate based on the export of sheets cut from prime quality paper. However, the testing by CPPRI did not confirm the quality of the goods.

6. Interpretation of "Prime Quality": The government rejected the department's reliance on dictionary definitions of "prime" to determine the classification. They emphasized that the nature of finished goods is determined by critical parameters, not just the raw materials used.

7. Lack of Substantive Evidence: The government noted that the department failed to provide conclusive evidence that the goods were not of prime quality. The report from CPPRI was inconclusive, and the in-house report submitted by the respondent was not contradicted effectively.

8. Decision: Based on the lack of substantial evidence and the failure to prove that the goods were not prime quality, the government upheld the decision of the appellate authority, allowing the respondent to claim the higher drawback rate.

9. Conclusion: The Revision Application was rejected for lacking merit, and the decision of the appellate authority was upheld.

← Previous Next →