2018 (6) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Duty Drawback - description of the goods - exemption from export duty - N/N. 133/2000 dt. 17.10.2000 - whether test result of one shipping bill can be made applicable to other shipping bills? - Held that - The description of the goods and the conditions applicable from the DGFT Public Notice are different for each of the three 3 shipping bills, which have been placed on record by the appellant page from 21 to 25 of the paper book. Even though the consignee is the same the fact that the goods declared were different for the three shipping bills and different conditions were claimed in terms of Public Notice No.21/2009-14 dt.1.12.2009 for each of the impugned shipping bills - Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in its view that test results of one shipping bill can be made applicable to other shipping bills. The export goods were declared to be covered under S.No.(I) and (XIII) of Public Notice No.21/2009-14 dt.1.12.2009. and the condition No.VI Burnishable Leathers (All subtracts including butts and bends) clearly is not applicable to shipping bill No.194. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of test reports and applicability to multiple shipping bills.
2. Assessment of export goods under exemption from export duty.
3. Discrepancies in goods description and conditions declared in shipping bills.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of test reports conducted on samples drawn from multiple shipping bills. The Central Leather Research Institute submitted test reports on samples from three shipping bills, confirming compliance with specific norms and notifications. The appellant contested the test results, claiming discrepancies in the samples tested and the goods exported. The assessing authority concluded that certain goods were not eligible for exemption from export duty based on the test reports.

Issue 2: The appellant appealed the final assessment order, leading to a review by the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the assessment. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the test report for one package should apply to all packages of similar goods exported on the same date. The Revenue contended that conditions for the goods were not met, thus justifying the imposition of export duty.

Issue 3: Both parties presented arguments regarding the description and conditions declared in the shipping bills. The appellant highlighted differences in packages, descriptions, and conditions for each shipping bill, emphasizing that test findings for one package should not be generalized to all packages. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the discrepancies and upheld the appellant's position, ruling that the test report for one package did not apply to all packages covered under the shipping bills.

The appellate tribunal examined the evidence, including the descriptions of goods in the shipping bills and the test reports, to determine the applicability of exemption from export duty. Ultimately, the tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the test report for one package could not be extrapolated to all packages, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.