2018 (7) TMI 624 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules for appellant in Jute Yarn export drawback case, historical practices considered.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the availment of draw back for the export of Jute Yarn, which was alleged to have been ... Duty Drawback - It was alleged that export product Jute Yarn was being exported as jute twine for claiming higher rate of draw back under the Drawback Rules - imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- The issue is decided in the case of M/S. KAJARIA YARN & TWINS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) , KOLKATA [2015 (10) TMI 2546 - CESTAT KOLKATA], where it was held that there is no provision for imposition of penalty in this case as the goods were examined and goods were exported thereafter and draw back claim was allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Availment of draw back for export of Jute Yarn- Classification of Jute Yarn as Jute Twine- Imposition of penalty and redemption fineAnalysis:Issue 1: Availment of draw back for export of Jute YarnThe appeals arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the availment of draw back for the export of Jute Yarn. The Department alleged that the export was misrepresented as Jute Twine to claim a higher rate of draw back under the Drawback Rules.Issue 2: Classification of Jute Yarn as Jute TwineThe main issue revolved around whether Jute Yarn could be treated as Jute Twine for the purpose of claiming draw back. The Department contended that Jute Yarn and Jute Twine are distinct products, supported by an expert opinion from the Institute of Jute Technology. The Ld. Advocate argued that historically both products were considered the same in trade practices, and past exports were permitted by the Department without issue.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty and redemption fineThe Ld. Advocate cited previous judgments to support the argument that no penalty or redemption fine should be imposed in this case. Referring to the decision in a similar case by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it was contended that in situations where goods were not available for seizure, imposition of penalty or redemption fine was not warranted. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. relied on Customs Act provisions and previous decisions to support the imposition of penalty and redemption fine.In the final analysis, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, citing precedents and judgments that favored the appellant's position. Relying on the decision in the case of Kajaria Yarn & Twine Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not sustainable. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.