TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of the goods and imposing penalty on them was set aside, and (b) Revenue s appeal against Joint Commissioner s order for imposition of redemption fine on the goods released against bank guarantee was rejected. 1.1 The Respondents imported a consignment declared to be of 17244 yards (23247 Sq.meters) of Polyester Knitted and Woven Fabric totally valued at Rs. 7,12,488/- at ICD, Ludhiana and filed a Bill of Entry No. 78, dt. 20-11-2000 for its clearance. Out of 17244 yards of fabric, 13428 yards was Polyester Knitted Fabric whose classification was claimed under 6002.43 and the remaining was polyester Woven fabric whose classification was claimed under 5407.52. The goods were examined on 1st check basis. On examination, repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Joint Commissioner did not impose any redemption fine on the goods, held to be liable for confiscation for being misdeclared in terms of description and value, on the ground that the same have been released against Provisional Duty Bond and are not physically available. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by the impugned order set aside the Joint Commissioner s order confirming the duty demand and imposing penalty on the grounds that - (a) while the SCN refers to only one test report dt. 14-9-01, the order-in-original relies on test reports dt. 12-1-01, 21-3-01, 28-3-01 and 14-9-01; which is violation of the principles of natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e samples were sent and it is in respect of these samples that CRCL submitted its report dt. 14-9-01 in which it was reported once again that the same are cut pile fabrics. Thus samples had been taken from each variety of the disputed fabrics in presence of the importer s CHA and on test the same were found to be cut pile fabrics of polyester. (3) There had been no violation of the principles of natural justice, as the importer was a party to the complete process of test and re-test and the test results were known to them and were also disclosed to them as mentioned in para 4 of the show cause notice. (4) When the goods declared as Polyester knitted fabrics were found to be Polyester Pile Fabrics , their value, based on the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime barred as at the time of ordering provisional assessment, no objection regarding value had been raised. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. In this case, six varieties of fabrics had been imported - five varieties of knitted fabrics and one variety of woven fabrics. Since classification dispute was in respect of knitted fabrics only and out of five varieties of knitted fabrics, as per the packing list, two varieties were the same, in all four samples were drawn from knitted fabrics - one from each variety. These four samples were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, CRCL, New Delhi vide letter No. CUS/CFS-CONCOR/104/2000/03, dt. 2-12-2000. There is an endorsement signed by the Respondent-importers CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lots of fabrics covered by the report Nos. CL 2913, 2914 2915 Imp are cut pile fabrics of polyester meriting classification under sub-heading 6001.92 and the lot of knitted polyester fabrics covered by report No. CL 2443 Imp is knitted polyester fabrics, other than pile fabrics and classifiable under sub-heading 6002.43. 4. As regards the value of the goods, we find that value of only the fabrics, held to be polyester knitted pile fabrics has been revised, but no basis for this revision has been given. In this regard, para 6 of the show cause notice dt. 11-4-03 reads as under : 6. In view of the above, it appears that the importer has misdeclared the import product as Warp knit polyester fabric as against Pile fabric of Poly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared in the Bill of Entry as knitted polyester fabrics classifiable under sub-heading 6002.43, which on test, were found to be knitted pile fabrics of polyester classifiable under sub-heading 6001.92, would be liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act for misdeclaration with regard to their description and even if the same are not physically available for confiscation as the same have been released against P.D. Bond, the same would be liable for redemption fine in view of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi (supra). Besides this, the Respondents (Importer) would also be liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 6. In view of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
