Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 784 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported fabrics - Covered textile fabrics or otherwise - A material can not be said to covering itself to be called covered material - Held that:- In the present case, the only material is polyester and therefore there is no ambiguity requiring predominance test. In case it is contended that the impugned goods are not consisting of two or more textile fabrics of different composition as they are made of only polyester, even then it would suffice to say that as per the said Explanatory Note, when a textile fabrics layered with another textile fabrics of a different material (by sewing gumming etc.) is not to be covered under the scope of 'covered fabrics' (CTH 59.07), then a textile fabrics covered by another textile fabrics of the same material will be (even more) not covered under the scope of 'covered fabrics' of CTH 59.07. Thus the appellants' contention that the said H.S.N. Note is not applicable for the purpose of classification in their case as there is only one material (Polyester) involved in their goods is totally untenable; indeed existence of only one material, as stated earlier, obviates the need to carry out the predominance test. Having thus analyzed, it may be reiterated that once the impugned goods are not held to be classifiable under CTH 5907, then even the appellants do not contend that in that case too they would not be classifiable under CTH 55151230. Non supply of information - Held that:- During the hearing before CESTAT the appellants did not take up the issue of valuation but they have mentioned in the appeal papers that in spite of their request, copies of alleged contemporaneous evidence for raising the value had not been given to them. We find that the Commissioner has clearly noted in the impugned order that they were informed vide letter dated 2.2.2007 to inspect/procure copies of desired documents and the same were supplied on 22.2.2007 under proper acknowledgment. After that the appellants did not desire personal hearing and categorically wrote that the issue may be decided on merit. Thus appellants contention in this regard in their appeal papers is untenable and that may be the reason why the issue of valuation was not raised by them during hearing before Cestat. - Decided against the assessee
|