Drawback claim fails where export description differs from schedule and supporting manufacturer lacks real manufacturing capacity.

Drawback entitlement depends on the exported goods matching the drawback schedule description, and the exporter must substantiate that match with technical material where the descriptions differ. Here, "heat resistant rubber tape" was treated as distinct from "heat resistant rubber tension tape", so the drawback claim failed. The supporting manufacturer issue was also resolved against the exporter on records and statements showing no real manufacturing facility, shifting premises, no extruder and procurement from the open market; confiscation and drawback recovery were upheld, while penalties were reduced as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods exported by the appellant were correctly described in the shipping bills and matched the drawback schedule so as to qualify for drawback; (ii) Whether the supporting manufacturer existed and had the facility to manufacture the goods, and whether the consequential confiscation, drawback recovery and penalties were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the goods exported by the appellant were correctly described in the shipping bills and matched the drawback schedule so as to qualify for drawback.

Analysis: The description in the shipping bills was "heat resistant rubber tape", while the drawback schedule covered "heat resistant rubber tension tape (strip rubber elastic)". The chemical examiner's report supported the existence of heat resistant rubber tape, but the appellant could not show technical material to establish that the exported goods were the same as the drawback-scheduled product. The Court treated the two descriptions as referring to different products and held that the exporters were aware of the description required for drawback.

Conclusion: The claim for drawback on this issue was not sustainable and the finding went against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the supporting manufacturer existed and had the facility to manufacture the goods, and whether the consequential confiscation, drawback recovery and penalties were justified.

Analysis: On the records and statements relied upon, the supporting manufacturer was found not to have the required manufacturing facility and the evidence indicated shifting premises, absence of machinery such as an extruder, and procurement from the open market. The Court accepted the inference that the goods were not manufactured by the declared supporting manufacturer. It upheld confiscation and the recovery of drawback already disbursed as inadmissible, but considered the penalty to be excessive in the circumstances and therefore reduced it.

Conclusion: The findings on absence of manufacturing facility, confiscation and drawback recovery were upheld, while the penalties were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeals substantially failed on the merits of drawback entitlement and confiscation, with only partial relief granted by way of reduction of penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exported goods do not answer the description in the drawback schedule and the declared supporting manufacturer is found to be a facade without manufacturing capacity, drawback is inadmissible and recovery, confiscation and penal consequences may follow, subject to proportionality in penalty.

---