TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the test reports - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos. C/1233,1234/2009 - A/88100-88101/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, for appellant Shri Bhushan Kamble, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Sanjiv Srivastava These appeals are directed against the order dated 27.10.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Mumbai Zone-I, holding as follows: 3. The reason why the AC denied the exemption are that there was no nexus between the imported goods and exported goods as required in the condition of the Advance License # p/w/2270714 dated 9.1.95; that it was not established that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 on the submission of documentary evidence at the appellate stage, I decline to permit the appellant to submit evidence on the above-mentioned aspects at the appellate stage. As such it is also not convincing that a textured (as it appears from the TC report) polyester fabric is commercially used as a shoe lining material. 6. The appellant relied upon several judgments. Let me examine them and see whether any one or all are applicable: 6.1 Therefore I uphold the decision of the lower authority to deny the exemption under notification # 203/92-Cus. 2.1 The appellants filled three bill of entries namely 884578, 884579 and 884580 dated 27.02.2009 for clearance of polyester fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree clearance of the imported goods namely polyester fabric as synthetic material in the License submitted appears improper. In view of the above I pass the following orders:- Order I order that the Bills of Entry be finally assessed without extending the benefit under notification 203/92-Cus dated 19.5.1992 claimed by the importer and goods be assessed at appropriate of duty as per the annexure. Now I direct the importer to pay duty along with interest u/s 1893) of Customs Act, 1962 at appropriate rate as specified in this regard. 2.6 Against the orders of adjudicating authority appellants preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). Commissioner (Appeal) rejected appeal filed by the appellant holding as st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a synthetic materia which is used in the manufacturing of synthetic footwear as per SION Product Group 63 (Plastic) at Serial No 2008. v. Commissioner (Appeal) failed to appreciate that they were constantly seeking adjournment from the adjudicating authority on the date of hearings fixed, for the reason that they were in process of collecting documents and other related papers in order to present their case before him. vi. Commissioner (appeal) has failed to consider the documentary evidence produced by them before him which they intended to be produced before the adjudicating authority in form Lab Report of DYCC, Test Report from Textile Committee, Clarification issued by DGFT etc, confirming that the imported material is a synth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter. Both the authorities have failed to consider these documents referred in para 4.2 and render a finding in respect of these. We are in agreement with the submissions of the Counsel, that these documents go to the root of matter specifically the letter of DGFT dated 30.07.2009. 5.2 Since these documents have not been considered by the lower authorities, the matter needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue in light of the clarification given by the Director General Foreign Trade and the test reports as indicated above. While doing so we are not expressing any opinion in respect of merits of clarification issued or its applicability and keep all questions involved open for consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
