9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Rate of drawback in respect of exports made by the appellants. Analysis: The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the rate of drawback claimed by the appellants for their exports. The appellants filed shipping bills for the export of "Handicraft of Brass Artware" with glass and wood fittings, claiming duty drawback at a certain rate. However, upon examination, it was found that the consignment consisted of simple glass mirrors backed with wooden pads and framed in a brass frame. The revenue authorities determined that the goods fell under a different category attracting a higher drawback rate. The Commissioner adjudicated the dispute based on the Supreme Court judgment in a similar case and concluded that the goods exported did not qualify as handicrafts to allow a higher drawback rate. The Commissioner emphasized the lack of artistic improvement or ornamentation in the goods, denying the appellants' claim for a higher rate of drawback. The appellants presented a certificate from the Metal Handicrafts Service Centre to support their claim that the items should be classified as brassware handicrafts. However, the certificate was issued after a significant delay from the date of export, and there was no evidence linking the certified items to the export consignment. The certificate was deemed insufficient to substantiate the appellants' claim for a higher drawback rate. Additionally, the appellants failed to provide any other evidence demonstrating that the goods qualified as handicrafts artware. The authorized representative acknowledged during the hearing that the goods lacked the necessary artistic quality or beauty to be categorized as handicrafts artware, aligning with the criteria set by the Supreme Court in a previous judgment. While the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellants' claim for a higher drawback rate, it found that the penalty imposed on the appellants was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had declared the goods as handicrafts in good faith, and if the revenue authorities disagreed, they could have simply disregarded the claim and allowed the drawback under a different serial number. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty but rejected the appeal in all other aspects. The decision was pronounced on 15-7-2005.
|
