1991 (9) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he provisions of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and further ordering confiscation of the same vide Section 113(1) of the Act, but granting option to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- and further imposing personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/- vide Section 114 of the said Act. 2. Though the issue raised is in relation to grant of drawback, as the adjudication is by the Additional Collector, the jurisdiction is invested in the Tribunal, and as both the sides have pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal from any angle is not ousted, the appeal is heard and is being disposed of by this order. 3. The appellants, on 2-4-1991, filed Shipping Bill No. 162970, declaring the export item as 100% Rayon Powerloom Readymade Garments, amongst others,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, plastic contents were more, the article could not be branded as not being the one of rayon. He also referred to a letter dated 19-4-1991, addressed to the Additional Collector, by Apparel Export Promotion Council; sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, stating that on being approached by the appellant, the Textile Commission, Govt. of India, Ministry of Textiles, at Bombay, was consulted, and that said committee, vide its letter dated 19-4-1991, had opined that in the sample furnished, basic structure being made from woven fabrics with sequins only attached, the rate of woven fabrics was more as compared to rate of sequins, as, without basic fabrics, the garments, would not exist. The Ld. Adv. pleaded that, with thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. The only objection raised is that weightwise, the plastic contents being more than Rayon fabric, the same does not fall within Entry No. 27 in the Appendix to the Drawback Rules, 1971. 7. Entry No. 27 of Appendix (as amended) reads thus :- "27. Made up articles and other articles chiefly made from textile materials not elsewhere specified." It is nobody's case that subject items are not garments, or that they are specified elsewhere. The use of the word "chiefly" in the entry positively indicates that the entry does not contemplate use, only of textile material in the garments. No criteria appears to have been laid down in the Drawback Rules, 1971, to interpret the said word "Chiefly" and one has to therefore, take its ordinary ....