Dharmesh Sharma JUDGMENT
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through its Partner praying for quashing and setting aside of impugned order dated 08 July 2022 passed by the Addl. Secretary to the Government of India exercising its revisional powers under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, as amended upto date1 thereby dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioner upholding the order of the original authority with regard to classification of goods exported and rejecting its claim of duty drawback under a different category.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is holder of 'Import Export Code' and is stated to be a regular exporter of CP Sanitary Bathroom Fitting in brass (Basin Mixer, Bath Mixer, Sink Mixer etc.), commonly known as sanitaryware under All Industry Rates Drawback Scheme2. It is stated that the subject goods are made of more than 90% brass and are chrome plated and are exclusively used in bathroom, kitchen etc. Suffice to state that after effecting the export of the consignment, the petitioner had claimed duty drawback @ 11% or Rs. 83 per kg (whichever was lower) on 07 September 2011, by classifying the goods under drawback heading No. 741902 Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended upto date3, while on the other hand, the Department asserted that the goods would be covered under sub heading 848180 of the 'CTA' thereby attracting drawback @ 7.3% or Rs. 43.10 per kg. It was further alleged by the Department that the petitioner had deliberately classified the goods in question under Chapter heading No. 7419 with the sole intention of availing extra drawback, and thus, the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 75 of the Act read with Customs Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 19954.
3. Although, the consignment was provisionally released, subsequently Show Cause Notice dated 26 September 2012 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), TKD, New Delhi5 to the petitioner as to why the goods in question should not be classified under Chapter heading 84818020 of the CTA and under Tariff heading 848101 of the Drawback Schedule to the customs, further proposing to confiscate the goods for mis-classification with the intention to avail higher drawback by the petitioner. The petitioner refuted such allegations and submitted a detailed reply dated 17 October 2012 with relevant documents but its objections did not find favour with the ACC(E) vide Order-in-Original No. 101/2013 dated 10 April 2013, thereby confirming recovery of drawback amounting to Rs. 19,36,809/-in respect of the past exports and also holding that the goods exported were liable to confiscation under Section 113(h)(ii) of the Act besides redemption fee of Rs. 20 Lacs and penalty of Rs. 15 Lacs.
4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)6, which was rejected vide order dated 31 March 2014. The petitioner then challenged the said order in the appeal by filing a Revision Application under Section 129DD of the Act before the Revisionary Authority i.e. the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Reven........