JUDGMENT
S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. By this petition the 1st Petitioner-company seek to challenge the order passed by the Respondents denying duty drawback to the Petitioners in respect of cotton bleached candy exported by the Petitioner under Duty Drawback Rules. The relevant entry is sub-serial No. 2617 under which the description of the goods entitled to duty drawback was as follows :
Cotton Fabrics (Other than handloom fabrics) not covered by S.S. No. 2616 when yarn dyed/piece dyed/printed in the body.”
2. By public notice dated 11-10-1984 the Directorate of Drawback clarified that Drawback on dye content was admissible only in cases where the goods were predominantly printed and that only a few thin lines of printing would not be entitled for drawback. By a clarification dated 8-10-1994 issued by the Director (Drawback) it was clarified that the goods which were not predominantly printed would not be entitled to the benefit of duty draw back. In view of the said clarification the Deputy Collector of Customs passed an order to the effect that cotton bleached candy was not predominantly printed and, therefore, the Petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of duty drawback. This was despite the finding of the Deputy Collector that printed portion in the fabric exported was 50%. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, the Petitioners preferred an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal on the same ground.
3. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that under the above sub-rule 2617, Petitioners were entitled to claim duty drawback in respect of the cotton bleached candy. It was contended that even reading the sub-serial 2617 with the clarification issued by the Director shows that the said cotton bleached candy consisted of 50% printed material and 50% non-printed. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that this fact is borne out by the findings given by the Authorities below. However the Authorities below came to the conclusion that despite the fact that the fabric had 50% printing material it cannot be called as predominantly printed fabrics and in the circumstances the authorities below erred in rejecting the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners.
4. We find considerable merit in the petition. The cotton bleached candy consisted of 50% printing. It cannot be stated that with the 50% printing there are only few thin lines printing as held by the authorities below. With the 50% printing it is undoubtedly a predominantly printed material. The clarification as well as the public notice disentitled the assessee from claiming the benefit of duty drawback only if few thin lines of printing/coloured yarn is contained in the body of the fabrics. In the present case that is not the case. In the present case predominantly the goods are printed to the extent of 50% in the body of the fabrics. In the circumstances the impugned orders denying duty drawback to the Petitioners are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector of Customs (Drawback department). In the circumstances the Petitioners are entitled to claim the benefit of duty drawback under sub-serial No. 2617 in respect of the cotton bleached candy. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector of Customs only for verification of the claim in respect of the duty drawback. The Deputy Collector (Drawback) will decide the amount payable to the Petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.