2012 (5) TMI 572 - AT - Customs

Classification of drawback claim - SI No. 630202 or Sl. No. 630207 - Held that - There is no whisper about the difference between the goods falling under entries i.e. 630202 and 630207. But the Department was of the view that the goods would fall under entry 630207 which deals with other category of goods blended with cotton and man-made fibre. Justification should have been brought out clearly to show how the goods exported were of other type of goods. In absence of any enquiry done in that regard to bring the goods to other category, there is no scope to agree with DR - goods exported does not belong to other category as is envisaged by the Entry 630207 - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for drawback under Serial No. 630202 converted to Sl. No. 630207 without justification.

Analysis:
The appellant made a claim for drawback under Serial No. 630202 of the Drawback Schedule, but the Revenue intended to convert it to Sl. No. 630207 without valid reasons. The goods exported were specified as Bed Linen, Table Linen, and Kitchen Linen containing a blend of cotton and man-made fiber. The appellant sought clarification from the Ministry of Finance, which confirmed that Sl. No. 630202 covers items made of a blend of cotton and man-made fiber, regardless of the blending stage. The learned CA argued that the description of goods for the claim of drawback did not specify the stage of blending, and thus, the claim should be allowed.

The Department, represented by the learned DR, contended that the stage of blending distinguishes the products, supporting the Adjudicating Commissioner's decision to deny the claim. However, upon review, it was noted that the adjudication order lacked clarification on the distinction between goods falling under entries 630202 and 630207. The Department's assertion that the goods should fall under entry 630207, categorizing them as 'other' goods blended with cotton and man-made fiber, was not adequately justified. The absence of a thorough enquiry to establish the goods as belonging to the 'other' category led to the disagreement with the learned DR's position.

In the absence of clear findings or reasons in the adjudication order supporting the classification of the exported goods under the 'other' category as per Entry 630207, the Tribunal sought assistance from the Amicus Curiae, Shri Asthana, to interpret the Customs Tariff Act and the Drawback Schedule. It was concluded that there was insufficient evidence or reasoning in the adjudication order to classify the goods under Entry 630207. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the lack of substantial grounds or findings to support the denial of the appellant's claim for drawback.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, interpretations, and considerations made by the Tribunal in addressing the issues raised regarding the conversion of the drawback claim from Serial No. 630202 to Sl. No. 630207 without proper justification.