9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Testing and Materials which lays down standards for materials as well as testing protocols which are followed world over - there are no reason to believe that the ASTM standard followed by the CIPET is incorrect. Insofar as the other test reports submitted by the appellant are concerned, any test report is as good as the sample. For instance, if we say, blood sugar content is very high, we should specify whose blood was drawn and tested and if it was drawn fasting or post prandial. Otherwise, the blood sugar levels in the test report mean nothing. Neither of the test reports relied upon by the appellant indicates that the samples which were tested were from the goods imported against the Bill of Entry - Further, even if there is one report from the Government laboratory and another from a private party, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Reliance Cellulose is that the test report of the government laboratory cannot be discarded in favour of some private test report - it is held in favour of Revenue and against the appellant insofar as the test report is concerned. Valuation of imported goods - imported EVA was declared to have 18% vinyl acetate but on testing by CIPET was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following submissions: i) The appellant had submitted two test reports- one from its supplier abroad and another from Shri Ram Laboratories (which are placed at pages H 49 and D 25 of the appeal) of which one says that the Vinyl acetate content is 18.1% and other says that it is 17% and the declared vinyl acetate content was 18%; ii) When there are more than one test reports, the test report favouring the importer should be adopted; iii) CIPET adopted the incorrect method to determine the vinyl acetate content of EVA. The correct method is ASTM- D 5594-98, a copy of which is placed at pages H43 toH46 of the appeal; iv) The appellant s request to get the sample re-tested was wrongly rejected by the department; v) Even if the test report of CIPET is adopted, there was no reason to reject the value declared by the appellant because there is nothing on record to show that any amount over and above what was declared was paid by the appellant to its supplier; and vi) Even if the value is rejected and re-determined, the value cannot be based on contemporaneous imports from some other regions. The value adopted by the Revenue is of the imports from some other regions and not from either S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports of EVA with 24% vinyl acetate content from Saudi Arabia, the lowest of the values of imports from other regions was adopted. FINDINGS 7. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The contention of the appellant is two-fold: a) Reliance on the test report of CIPET is not correct; and b) Even if the test report is accepted, the method of re-determination of value is not correct. 8. The appellant assails the CIPET s test report on the ground that it had adopted the incorrect method for testing and that there were two other test reports one from its own supplier and the other from a private laboratory which show vinyl acetate content of only 18%. The submission, therefore, is whichever test report is beneficial to the importer should be adopted. 9. The test report of CIPET reads as follows: TEST CERTIFICATE PART-B: TEST RESULTS TEST REPORT NO. 0190 NO. Name of the Test Test Method Units Test Value obtained 1 Physical Appearance ---- ---- Glossy transparent natural white pellets strands/granules of regular shape variable size. 2 Identification of Constituents Simple identification by Braun/IS-10146-82 Gms/10 min. 1.44 3 Melt Flow Index (At 190o C 2.16 kg Load) ASTM D 123 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the Bill of Entry. The difference in dates shows that the sample in the case of Shri Ram pertains to something drawn several years after the Bill of Entry. On the contrary, the CIPET test report indicates that the sample tested was of the Bill of Entry in dispute. Therefore, the two test reports relied on by the appellant have no relevance in deciding this appeal. 12. Further, even if there is one report from the Government laboratory and another from a private party, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Reliance Cellulose is that the test report of the government laboratory cannot be discarded in favour of some private test report. 13. For all these reasons, we hold in favour of Revenue and against the appellant insofar as the test report is concerned. 14. Coming to the second question of valuation, the imported EVA was declared to have 18% vinyl acetate but on testing by CIPET was found to contain 22.4% vinyl acetate. So, the proper officer had a reasonable doubt and correctly rejected the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. 15. Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any evidence that any additional amount was remitted by the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
