TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on them. List of the processes specified include Levelling, Fatliquoring, Shaving/snuffing of the grain and other processes specified in the ITC Public Notice. However, from the impugned order, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has not examined the exported goods from the perspective of whether they have been subjected to any or all of these processes. The test reports only confirmed the fact that the goods are permitted for export and that they are in the nature of Cow Split Wet Blue Leather. The test reports do not record what processes have been carried out on the leather which were being exported. The meaning of the term finished leather is required to be considered in terms of what is specified in the ITC Public Notice referred above. The ITC Public Notice lists out a series of several processes which the leather should have been subjected to for considering the same as finished leather. But it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has made no reference to the ITC Public Notice, nor has he examined whether the exported goods have been subjected to these processes or atleast some of these processes - It is seen that the exported goods have been entered for exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they exported 11 consignments of these goods, which are the subject matter of the impugned order dated 29.02.2008. The subsequent Order dated 28.03.2008 dealt with export of 24 consignments during the period 18.12.2005 to 18.12.2006. The export of Hides, Skin, leather tanned and untanned is specified in the Second Schedule of Export Tariff of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as liable to payment of export duty @60%. The exporter claimed the benefit of nil rate of duty as per Notification No.133/2000-Cus dated 17.10.2000 which was available to various goods including Finished Leather of Goat, Sheep and Bovine Animals and their young ones (Sl.No.3). By availing nil rate of export duty, the goods were exported. 2.2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated into the allegation that M/s. M.N.Roy Sons were exporting unfinished leather items by mis-declaring the same as finished leather by wrongly claiming the benefit of Notification No.133/2000-Cus dated 17.10.2000. Investigations were undertaken by the DRI and the statement of Shri Subir Roy, Proprietor was recorded by them under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. When questioned about the nature of proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch Institutes, Kolkata (in short CLRI) for testing of the same and for their opinion whether the exported goods are in the nature of (i) Cow Pickled or EI tanned , (ii) Whether the commodity is prohibited for export as per Wild Life Protection Act. He submitted that the CLRI had categorically opined that the goods which were to be exported were in the nature of Cow Split Wet Blue Leather, which was allowed for export without any export licence. b) Ld. Counsel further submitted that the items exported were covered under Sl.No.14 of the Second Schedule which prescribes an export duty @ 60%, but nil rate of export duty was available to Finished Leather of Goat, Sheep and Bovine Animals and their young one as per Notification No.133/2000 (Sl.No.3). In this connection he submitted that there is an Explanation at the foot of the said notification which clarifies what should be construed as finished leather for the purpose of this notification. The Explanation reads as follows: Explanation.- For the purpose of this notification, finished leather of goat, sheep and bovine animals and of their your ones means the leather which complies with the terms and conditions specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified. e) He referred to the copy of the Departmental Note for order dated 28.04.2007 (part of appeal papers ) in which the apprising group has put up the note to the Assistant Commissioner who in turn has allowed export of Cow Pickled Leather with the benefit of Notification No.133/2000-Cus, without any objection. f) With reference to the Order dated 28.03.2008, the ld. Counsel submits that the show cause notice in this case has been issued for a period more than the normal time limit by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28. He submitted that the department is not entitled to invoke the extended period once again particularly in view of the fact that a show cause notice has already been issued covering the same issue for an earlier period in which the extended period of limitation was already invoked. g) Finally, he submitted that the impugned orders passed may be set aside since the same have been passed without any tangible evidence to conclude that the exported goods were not finished leather. 4. Ld. DR justified the impugned orders. His submissions are summarized below: a) He reiterated the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reports only confirmed the fact that the goods are permitted for export and that they are in the nature of Cow Split Wet Blue Leather. The test reports do not record what processes have been carried out on the leather which were being exported. 8. The main evidence relied on by the Adjudicating Authority in coming to the conclusion that the exported goods were infact unfinished leather intermidiatary leather is the oral evidence given by Shri Subir Roy, Proprietor. In terms of the statement of Shri Subir Roy, for leather to be considered as finished leather, 4 stages of processes is required to be undertaken out of which the exporter is undertaking only 2 such processes. Accordingly, he has admitted that the exported goods are not finished leather. But we note that the meaning of the term finished leather is required to be considered in terms of what is specified in the ITC Public Notice referred above. The ITC Public Notice lists out a series of several processes which the leather should have been subjected to for considering the same as finished leather. But it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has made no reference to the ITC Public Notice, nor has he examined whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
