2015 (11) TMI 1330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne and granted Letter of Permission (LOP) for manufacturing of recycled plastic granules/flakes/agglomerates/Pallets/Bars/Powder. The said SEZ units were also permitted to do trading of all items except restricted, prohibited, canalized items and plastic waste and scrap. In the present case, the said SEZ units sold imported Plastic Stickers whether or not printed, embossed or impregnated classifiable under 39199010 of the Customs Tariff Act and supplied to M/s Alfa Industries and M/s Anshita Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DTA Unit'). The Customs Officers made the investigation and found that the said materials were plastic waste and scrap classifiable under Heading (CTH) No. 39151909 of the Customs Tariff Act, and restric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Customs Laboratory is applicable in the present case. 5. We find from the record that by letter dated 27.08.2004, the Development Commissioner Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham forwarded samples for testing of Plastic Stickers and Chemical Analysis to the Director of the C.I.P.E.T Extension Centre, (Ahmedabad). The Deputy Commissioner, Customs Kandla KASEZ by letter dated 17.11.2004 forwarded the Test Report of CIPET to the Deputy Commissioner (SIIB) Customs House, Gandhidham. 6. It is seen that in the Test Report, CIPET observed that the sample is cut pieces of clear film with Paper Stickers. The Adjudicating Authority proceeded on the basis Report of the Customs Laboratory. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ermissible under the law, if any irregularity is found pursuant to the report submitted by the CIPET, Ahmedabad or the CIPET, Chennai." 7. We find that the Hon'ble High Court had given a clear direction to consider the Report of the CIPET. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority had not given any finding on the Report of CIPET. In our considered view, the CIPET Report is required to be considered, before going to the Customs House Laboratory Report. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground alone. 8. In view of the above discussions, we set-aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the appellants and to pass order in ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X