9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hipping bills and classified under Drawback Schedule Heading No. 732602 which covers "other handicraft of Iron and Steel" and DBK rate of 12.05% was claimed for all goods. In order to support the claimed classification the applicant also attached a certificate bearing No. DC/(H)/Tex/PSICII/ NR/1(14)/2003-04/123, dated 10-9-2008 from Assistant Director (A & C), working under the office of the Development Commissioner (H), Northern Regional Office, West Block-8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 2.1 At the time of processing of DBK claim it was observed by the department from the description mentioned on invoices attached with the above referred shipping bills that the four consignments contained goods such as chair, table bird cage, plant stand, tray and stand, etc. In respect of table, chairs etc. it was observed that since these are very well covered by the definition of furniture, and "Furniture" are specifically covered under Chapter 94 (under sub-heading 9403), hence the claimed classification under DBK Heading 732602 as "other handicraft of Iron & Steel" appeared incorrect and this observation/objection was communicated to the applicant. The applicant vide this letter dated 14-1-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclature at the four digit level. In brief it implied that classification of a given products for Drawback Schedule will be identical to that of an imported goods in Customs Tariff up to four digits. The first two digits of the four digits indicates relevant chapter while the remaining two digits indicate sub-heading of the goods in question in the relevant chapter. For example if imported "furniture" (Table, chairs etc.) are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9403 in Chapter 94 then for drawback purpose also it should be classified under 94023 in Chapter 94 only. These classification conditions derive their sanctity from condition (1) and condition (2) under Heading "Notes and Conditions" in Notification No. 103/2008-Cus. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2008 as shown below. Note and Conditions : (i) The tariff items and description of goods in the said schedule are aligned with the tariff items and description of goods in the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) at the four digit level only. The description of goods given at the six digit or eight digit or modified six or eight or ten digits are in several cases not aligned with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en denied in present case and the case merits further appeal by the department. 4.9 Party quoted only one para i.e. "Thus, as discussed above, the application of condition..............which remains same as determined by application of Condition No. (1) and (92) i.e. 9403" and submitted that Assessing Authority has ignored the non-obstinate nature of condition No. 3 which is completely far from the facts. 4.10 Observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 5.3 of his order "I find that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has observed that the Condition No. 3 of the Notification supra has no role to play in the determination of the relevant chapter for the product............." is completely away from the reality as adjudicating authority has taken full cognizance of non-obstinate nature of Condition No. 3 and it appears that the adjudication order has not been read and understood properly. 5. Based on above revision application a show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. Their reply was received on 23-3-2011. They have mainly relied upon the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 3/2010-Cus., dated 12-2-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N.T.), dated 29-8-2008 in this regard. 2. The matter has been examined. I am directed to state that it may be recalled that Board vide Circular No. 128/39/95-CX., dated 25-5-1995 had clarified that since the office of Development Commissioner (Handicraft) has treated imitation or real zari as handicrafts the same may be treated as handicrafts by the Customs and Central Excise Authorities. However, the Board vide Circular No. 280/114/96-CX., dated 19-12-1996 modified this guideline by stating that the following criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Louis Shoppe [1996 (10) CXLT (SC) CE-277-(1996) (13) RLT 507 (SC)] for treating any goods as handicrafts may also be followed : (i) It must be predominantly made by hand; it does not matter if some machinery is also used in the process. (ii) It must be graced with visual appeal in the nature of ornamentation or in-lay work or some similar work lending it an element of artistic improvement. Such ornamentation must be of substantial nature and not a mere pretence. 3. The board reiterated these guidelines vide Circular No. 32/99-Cus., dated 4-6-1999. The Board vide subsequent Circular No. 56/99-Cus., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed thereunder." 7.4 Here the applicant party have declared the impugned goods as "other handicraft of iron & aluminium" and classified them under Drawback Schedule Heading 732602 which covers "other handicraft of iron & steel" and claimed drawback at the rate of 12.05% for all the goods. It is categorically illustrated in para 5 of the circular that a handicraft table made of stainless steel would fall under CTH 9403 as per HSN. It would, however, fall under Drawback Schedule Heading 732606 (Handicraft/Artware of Stainless Steel) In this case, the issue involved is exactly same. Government notes that condition No. 3 of Drawback Schedule, Notification No. 103/2008-Cus. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2008 (Notes and conditions), provides that - "Notwithstanding anything contained in said schedule, all artware or handicraft items shall be classified under the heading artware or handicraft (of constituent material) as mentioned in the relevant chapters. The essence of this condition is explained in para 5 of above said C.B.E. & C. Circular. Government is in agreement with the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) who has rightly observed in para 5.4 of his order-in-appeal as under - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
