9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 113(i) of the Act. The export in question was made under shipping bill dated7-5-1999, which was filed under claim for duty drawback. They were described as "GOODS OF INDIAN ORIGIN NOT USED AFTER MANUFACTURING" as also "INDIAN HANDICRAFTS OF IRON ARTWARES" in the shipping bill. The goods were exported in 291 cases and included a variety of items such as Iron Press, Iron Lock and Iron Balance as is discernible from the relevant invoice. Before the goods were provisionally released for exportation, they were subjected to physical inspection, whereupon it appeared to the Customs authorities that the goods were 'articles of iron and not Indian handicrafts of iron artwares'. The authorities, therefore, took the view that the goods had been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is submitted that the tests laid down by the apex court in the said judgment are applicable only to wooden handicrafts and the same are not applicable to the goods in question in the present case. The learned counsel has also produced a sample of what looks like a miniature replica of "iron press with chimney", black in colour. It is submitted that the exported consignment included thousand pieces of this item described in the invoice as "IRON PRESS MINNI WITH CHIMNEY". It is claimed that this item was made mainly with the hand and was given an antique look by giving a suitable coating over the metallic article. It is also submitted that this item was made of galvanized iron. The counsel has claimed that this item should appropriately be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CH certificate dated11-8-2000, which is seen to be endorsed on the relevant invoice and, apparently, was not considered by the Commissioner, shows that the goods were 'handicrafts of iron.' What now requires to be shown is that the goods were artwares. It is incumbent on the appellant to establish that the goods exported by them were artwares. As rightly pointed out by the learned JDR, the adjudicating authority, upon visual examination of the goods, found them not to be artwares. The goods, obviously, were of no visual appeal to the Commissioner. No samples of the goods, barring a piece of 'iron press with chimney,' have been produced by the appellant before us to enable us to sit in judgment over the finding recorded by the learned Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with chimney (sample shown to us), there is substance in the plea of the appellant that the learned Commissioner erred in observing that the goods should be considered as household item. However, these minor infirmities would not detract from the sustainability of the essential finding of the Commissioner that the goods are not artwares. We have already taken the view that we cannot interfere with such finding in the absence of evidence of the goods (barring iron press with chimney figuring at serial No. 5 of the invoice) being artwares. 6. It appears from the impugned order that the quantum of penalty was determined by the Commissioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the amount of the drawback clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
