2018 (8) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Duty Drawback - denial of benefit of drawback on the ground that the goods exported by the appellant were not handicrafts but furniture - Held that - The identical issue stands considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur vs. Art Asia Sankalp International 2015 (1) TMI 795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . While dealing with same, the Tribunal observed that The Revenue has gone by the examination of the furniture by the Customs Officers, who cannot be held to be experts in the field. There is no expert opinion produced by the Customs Authorities - the fact that the appellant is registered with the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts , is indicative of the fact that furniture manufactured by the appellant is Handicrafts . In view of the fact that the appellant is not only registered with the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts but has also produced certificates from them, certifying that the goods exported by the appellant were Handicrafts, it has to be held that the appellant exported handicraft items - the appellants are entitled to drawback benefits by treating the exported goods as Handicrafts. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over benefit of drawback claimed on exports of furniture items as handicrafts.
Interpretation of registration with Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts.
Denial of drawback benefits by Lower Authorities.
Classification of goods as handicrafts or furniture.
Expert opinion and certificates from Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts.
Application of precedent decisions regarding classification of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD dealt with a dispute concerning the benefit of drawback claimed by the appellant on exports of furniture items, which they asserted were handicrafts. The Lower Authorities had denied this benefit, stating that the goods exported were furniture, not handicrafts. The appellant was registered with the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, and the certificate described the goods as handicrafts, issued in 2004 and renewed in 2015. The Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly concluded that the appellant was registered from 2015, whereas the registration was effective from 2004, covering the entire period in question.

Regarding the classification of goods, the advocate argued that out of 25 export consignments, 24 were allowed as handicrafts, with an objection raised only for the 25th consignment. The Lower Authorities classified the goods as simple furniture based on visual examination, lacking expert opinion. However, the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts certified the goods as handicrafts, correlating with the invoices. Citing a precedent decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of expert opinion and the registration with the Council for Handicrafts in determining the classification of goods.

Applying the precedent decision and considering the appellant's registration and certificates from the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, the Tribunal concluded that the goods exported were handicraft items. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the significance of expert opinions and official certifications in determining the classification of goods for claiming benefits such as drawback.