SHIVKUMAR EXPORTS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Order -in -Original No. S/6 -B -3131/91 Exp, dated 15 -4 -1991 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Exports Deptt, Bombay, rejecting the claim of the drawback claimed in relation the Export Item 100%, Rayon Powerlooms Readymade Garments, and holding the Exporter to have contravened the 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. 2,0007 -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, comprising of 132 sets of Rayon Sequins Embroidered skirts and blouse sets, and 102 pieces of Rayon Sequins embroidered taps, showing the total value of consignment as Rs. 1,89,388 FOB and claimed drawback under Sr. No. 27 sub -serial 2707 to the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, at the rate of 8% FOB. On scrutiny, the aforementioned 132 and 102 pieces were found to have been completely embedded with sequin made of plastics and percentage of Rayon in them was much less than 50% by weight, and embedded sequin were much more than 50% and as such, it was felt that they could not be branded as garments made of Rayon, but the garments were of Rayon fabrics and plastic sequin and for that, the drawback, to the extent of Rs. 4,631.00 was not admissible. The appellants however maintained them to be garments of Rayon and hence adjudication proceedings were conducted and after hearing the appellants, the impugned order was passed.