9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal on the basis of records available. 2. Briefly stated, the facts in the present appeal, are that M/s Fairdeal Supplies (P) Ltd, Kolkata, the Appellant herein, imported coking coal of Chinese origin at Pipavav port and filed 4 bills of entry in July and August 2002 to clear the consignments. The ash content was declared less than 12 percent and exemption under the Customs Notification No. 21/2002 was claimed. The bills of entry were provisionally assessed for want of original documents and test result. Only one representative sample was drawn (which related to the Bill of Entry No.26/2002-03, dt.17.07.2002) because the consignments covered by all the four bills of entry were for the same importer, of the same commodity and imported in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of the impugned Order-in-Original, dt.08.01.2007, it is observed that the Adjudicating authority has recorded; sample was drawn in presence of the authorized representative of the importer/CHA (who did not object about the method of sampling). After payment of Customs duty, the out of charge was given on 18.07.2002. During the examination of imported good in respect of the remaining B/Es no sample was drawn as the sample already drawn in earlier B/E, being same party, same commodity and same vessel. He also observed that on testing the sample, the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise & Customs, Regional Laboratory, Vadodara, certified that the ash content is 15.1%. In the light of the test results, the importer vide letter dt.01.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f taking sample on 18.07.2002 the manager of the Appellant company was present and he stated in writing on the sample-drawal form, the sample was drawn in their presence and they were perfectly satisfied with the manner of sampling and one sealed sample was given. So, it cannot be complained now at the appellate stage that the sampling was wrong or the sample was not representative because it was drawn only for one bill of entry. The reason stated in the impugned order, for drawing the sample for one bill of entry was that the consignments covered by all the four bills of entry were for the same importer, of the same commodity and imported in the same vessel. This is acceptable reason and does not vitiate the representative character of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
