TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equential re1ief. 1. The facts of the case are that the appellant had sought clearance of Nylon Tricot Flocking Fabrics, valued at Rs. 11,03,465.00 on 14-10-1998 declaring as Insole Sheet, claiming benefit of CN 23/98 Sl. No. 108, List 3A, Sl. No. 3 at concessional rate of duty; at 20% basic customs duty as against merit rate of 40%. Under these heading goods such as Insole, Midsole and parts thereof for leather industry; are eligible for concessional rate of basic customs duty at 20% as against 40%. Subject; item Nylon Tricot Flock fabric is a product having multiple use. Whether it can be used as insole, midsole, in leather industry; has been debatable issue for years. The practice being followed this customs house like other custom hou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 108 of Customs Act of the Proprietor of Appellant Sri Madanlal Deepchand Jain was recorded. Quantified duty of Rs. 5,99,740/- was paid by Importer on 17-10-1998. Banker s cheque for Rs. 2,74,297.00 towards differential duty was also paid by Sri Jain in subject B/E, (which was assessed to duty at 20% + 5% + 18% + 5% + 0.05%). Show cause notice was issued on 16-4-1999 under Sections 124 and 28 of Customs Act to the importer to show cause to Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Customs House, Mumbai, as to why duty short paid of Rs. 2,74,297.00 should not be demanded along with interest under Section 28AB of Customs Act, and paid during investigation should not be adjusted towards the liability, and seized goods valued at Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Unit, Mumbai, in response to summons dated 29-10-1998 stating that Nylon Tricot Flock fabric is a regular item being allowed clearance by Mumbai customs, and there is no irregularity into present Import, and Bill of Entry for home consumption dated 15-10-1998 for Insole sheet (Nylon Tricot Flocking) of 15007 Metres in Sixty cartons, and Invoice for the same dated 10-9-1998, and the Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 2-6-1998 at Serial No. 108 that the following goods for use in leather industries, namely (1) parts, consumables, and other items specified in List 3A - (item No. 3 - Insoles or Midsoles and sheet thereafter), (2) Other parts, consumables and items specified in List 3(B), falling under Chapter 64 or any other chapter with s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other items, under No. 3 Insoles or Midsoles sheets therefor is mentioned. Board Circular No. 74/98-Cus., dated 6-10-1998 is also perused. 1997 (93) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Handicraft Exports, Notificatoin No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 for Buckles and other embellishment for footwear used in leather industry is considered. 1998 (99) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.) in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Pecific Exports Notificaton No. 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1995 for the goods imported Sodium Lauryl Sulphate having used in leather Industry and could also be used as emulsifier in synthetic fat liquouring compositions - importer only a trader - He should adduce evidence to show that the goods imported were meant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement and the exercise of duress and giving false assurance to extract such statement, with any document in the nature of complaint to superiors of the officer who has recorded the statement. In the absence of it, the said explanation can only be termed as face saving device. It cannot be accepted. The contention of the appellant about the interpretation of the word - for use - in the notification in the light of Supreme Court s judgment relied on, to mean as - capable of being used - even if accepted, the appellant has to show it to get benefit of notification, which is not done. Appellant, being only a trader, and supplier of goods involved for value for different purposes, other than leather industry of footwear, has to show by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has issued Bank cheque to show his bona fides. He has clearly admitted that as far as he knew Nylon Tricot Flock fabric is generally not used as insole. Earlier consignment cleared was sold to various customers as tailoring material, and not to any shoe manufacturer or leather industry. These statements, going against the interest of appellant in the case holds good, and is intact. There are no sufficient reason to discard it. Even ignoring the Technical opinion of both CLRI and Indian Institute of Leather Products and Board s circular, as contended by the appellant, it is for the appellant to bring his claim within the purview of the notification to avail benefit. Notification has to be interpreted strictly. Party claiming the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
