2013 (7) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Jayshri Impex have exported goods declaring as "woven fabrics containing 85% or more by weight of Synthetic Filament Yarn (dyed and printed polyester)" vide Shipping Bill No. 5588/06-07, dated 10-11-2006 and claimed Drawback under Tariff Item No. 540702A of the Drawback Schedule. Representative sample of the exported fabrics was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Kandla for testing who vide test result reported that "The samples is in form of cut pieces of printed woven fabric made of polyester filament yarns. It is not dyed. GSM of fabrics is 64.6 g/m2". Considering the provision of the Notification No. 81/2006-Cus. (N.T.), dated 13-7-2006, which stipulates that "Dyed in relation to te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erized or printed or melange." It is not the case of the respondents that the goods exported by them were made of cotton, therefore, the applicability of the condition No. 15 is ruled out. Further as per the condition No. 10, the goods were required to be either dyed or "piece dyed" or "predominantly printed" or "colored in body". The test report categorically indicates that the sample representing the export goods was not dyed, hence the benefits of T.I NO. 540702-A is not extendable to the goods exported by the respondents, particularly when it is also not the case of the respondents that the goods were "piece dyed" or "predominantly printed" or "coloured in body". 4.3 The Order-in-Appeal cited the condition No. 15-A in the Notification....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere also not pre-dominantly printed. Therefore, the para 10 of the Notification No. 81/2006-Cus. (N.T.), dated 13-7-2006 is not applicable. 5. Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent to file their counter reply, who vide their written reply 20-3-2011, mainly submitted that :- 5.1 Revision application filed by the Commissioner, Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar is devoid of merits and without appreciating the provisions of Notification No. 81/2006-Cus. (N.T.), dated 13-7-2006 in its entirety. The Commissioner failed to understand the conditions of the said notification and read the certain portion of the condition in isolation. The Commissioner also failed to take into account that condition No. 15A was also part of said Notification No. 81....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended the hearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, and submissions made in this case. 8. Government observes that the respondents had exported goods declaring the same as "woven fabrics containing 85% or more by weight of synthetic filament yarn (dyed and printed) polyester" under claim of drawback under Tariff item no. 540702A of the Drawback Schedule. Chemical Examiner vide test report stated that "the samples is in form of cut pieces of printed woven fabric made of polyester filament yarn. It is not dyed. GSM of fabrics is 64.6 g/m2". The original authority relying upon provisions of the Notification No. 81/20....