AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 10 (d) and 10 (e) of CBLR 2018. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is a holder of Customs Broker License and had filed 24 shipping bills during the period August 2015 to February 2016 on behalf of the exporter M/s.Rajashree Match Works, Sattur, Virudunagar District who was alleged to obtained excess MEIS benefits by misclassifying 'Match Skillets' exported by them under CTH 36050090 instead of under CTH 48192010. Incidentally, classification 36050090 attracts 2% higher rate of MEIS. The excess availment was found by the scrutiny of the data analytics of MEIS scheme by the system. On the allegation that the appellant has colluded with the exporter and filed the shipping bill with incorrect classification inten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the striking surface coated with combustible preparation. He further submits that the appellant could not have given any advice against the assessment practice followed by the department; the assessing officers even though they well knew that the goods exported were 'Match Skillets' made out of white board, did not raise any objection. He further submits that the draw back schedule also adopts this classification under Heading 3605 since 2005. Hence there was no need for giving any advice to the exporter under Regulation 10 (d) and for the same reason there was no failure to exercise due diligence in imparting correct information to their client under Regulation 10 (e). He further submits that in the same Custom House the other exporters....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- on the appellant is not legally sustainable as the appellant has not committed any wrong in filing the shipping bill which was allowed by the assessment and examination officer and also by DGFT authorities. 5. Ld. Counsel took me through Regulation 10 (d) and 10 (e) and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no non-compliance of any provisions of the Customs Act by the exporter and hence there was nothing to bring to the knowledge of the of Deputy Commissioner / Asst. Commissioner of Customs and consequently, there was no question of contravention of provision of Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR 2018. He also referred to the Advisory No.01/2022 dt. 29.12.2002 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant from the very beginning was that CTH adopted by the appellant was based on the assessment practice for Match Skillets made out of white board. The appellant has also given justification for the said classification. Further, I find that the assessing officers were well aware of the classification and they allowed the said classification without any objection. The respondent did not raise any objection to the adopted classification even though the description of the export goods was correctly declared. Further, I find that it is not only the appellant who has followed this classification with regard to impugned goods rather other exporters were also adopting the same classification which was followed at Tuticorin port during the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clearly mentions that the goods are non-texturised fabrics. They have also claimed that a similar consignment imported by them from the same supplier had earlier been cleared as non-texturised polyester fabrics which gave them the bona fide belief that the present consignment would also be of non-texturised variety. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the Appellants have deliberately misdeclared the goods with a view to avail the benefit of lesser rate of duty. Consequently, confiscation and redemption fine as well penalty is set aside" 9. Similarly in the case of CCE Visakhapatnam Vs Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. reported in 2004 (167) ELT 225 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal held in para-3 as under : ....