TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of entry dated 21-6-1989 filed by them for the clearance of the said goods. The assessable value of the goods was declared at Rs. 162977/- and relevant import licence was produced for the clearance of the goods. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 55/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987 as amended by Notification No. 180/87-Cus. dated 20-4-1987 on the ground that wool waste was classifiable under CTH 5103.20 read with Cus. Notification No. 108/89 and the rate of import duty applicable on the said waste of wool was 20% + 50% + Nil CVD + 0.05% Cess. The goods were examined and examination report revealed the following contents :- Woollen threads in running length from 10 metres to 20 metres Goods are in assorted color as well as in mixe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by the appellants and (ii) the value adopted by the Department is correct or not. 5. Shri Hari Om Arora appearing for the appellants submitted that Department erred in relying upon the examination report without bringing any evidence on record regarding trade understanding of the wool waste referred to in Tariff Heading 51.03. There is no statutory definition of wool waste in the Tariff itself. He drew our attention to the Tariff entry 51 and exemption Notification 55/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987 as amended by Notification No. 180/87-Cus. wherein the Central Government exempts raw wool falling under Heading No. 51.01 and waste of wool (including yarn waste and other waste) falling under Heading 51.03 of the First Schedule to the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et the goods mutilated to the satisfaction of the Custom authorities before release but this offer had not been accepted. He said that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Swastic Woollen and Others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1988 (34) E.L.T. 83] and the view of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. Others - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 474 (SC). He said that the same issue was directly dealt by the Tribunal in the case of S.S. Enterprises [1988 (36) E.L.T. 135] and in the case of Mahavir Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 563. 6. Shri L.C. Chakravarthy a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this case. We observe that the goods are invoiced Wool Waste and in the same manner it was described in the Bill of Entry. The description and classification of the goods as evidenced by the invoice and the Bill of Entry is not acceptable to the Department, the burden squarely lies on the department to prove that the goods are different. The department has failed to prove that the goods in question were woollen yarn to be classified under Heading 5106.10. Neither the term Wool Waste as such was defined in the Tariff Act nor was any evidence to show trade understanding of the expression Wool Waste . On the other hand the expression Wool Waste was discussed in detail in the case of Swastic Woollens. Furthermore it is on the record th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
