9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent over the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner - no visual appeal to the Commissioner – Lower authority finding upon visual examination cannot be interfered – Drawback claim be allowed in respect of only one item – Penalty to be requantified - C/897/2003 - A/319/2010-WZB/C-II/(CSTB) - Dated:- 25-8-2010 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, S.K. Gaule, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rahul Moghe, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal is directed against the Commissioner s order, wherein a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act on the ground that they had rendered certain goods exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In the present appeal, the findings of the Commissioner have been challenged on various grounds and the case of Collector v. Louis Shoppe - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) has been distinguished. Elaborating the grounds of the appeal, the learned counsel submits that the learned Commissioner did not consider the EPCH certificate endorsed on the relevant invoice, which had certified that the goods were handicrafts of iron. It is further submitted that the adjudicating authority erred in relying on the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in Louis Shoppe case, wherein what was considered by the apex court was the question whether certain wooden furniture could be characterized as handicrafts for purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the appellant about the physical properties of the articles is not supported by any evidence. According to the learned JDR, the adjudicating authority took the correct view on the basis of visual examination of the goods and the same cannot be interfered with, especially in the absence of samples. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. After considering the submissions, we note that the appellant claimed drawback of duty in respect of goods described as INDIAN HANDICRAFTS OF IRON ARTWARES . They claimed the benefit in terms of serial No. 73.27(ii) of the Drawback Schedule, where the item was described as handicrafts of iron artwares . Obviously, the party was required to show that the articles exported by them were handicrafts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... item is too small to be actually used as a press and appears to be a miniature replica of iron press with chimney, which might have been used in this country in olden days. In other words, this item is of no utility other than as an object of visual appeal. We are of the view that this item, already certified by EPCH authorities to be handicraft of iron, can be considered as an artware answering the description of goods at serial No. 73.27 ibid. of the Drawback Schedule. In the absence of samples of the other goods covered by the export consignment, we would uphold the finding of the Commissioner. 5. We agree that the learned Commissioner erred in following the apex court s ruling rendered in Louis Shoppe case. We also agree that, at lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
