TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The ld. counsel was at pains to argue that the said Public Notice discussed is outdated. Be that as it may, when that is the only method of ascertaining the correctness of the type of leathers declared, that too by a recognized institute of national importance, have to be accepted. Interestingly, we find that in the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellants have enclosed a subsequent copy of Public Notice No.21/2004 dated 1.12.2009 also issued by DGFT concerning the latest leather norms. It is therefore obvious that the concerned authorities have been also seized of the matter and have issued revised norms as per the said notification. The exports in the present case are before the Public Notice No. 21/2004 came to be introduced. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re sent to the Central Leather Research Institute, (CLRI) Chennai for expert opinion. In their report, CLRI informed that the samples of leather submitted did not satisfy the norms for finished leather. However, the three consignments of the impugned goods valued at FOB ₹ 8,36,534/- ₹ 8,95,712/- and ₹ 27,08,304/- were inter alia confiscated under section 103 of the Customs Act, however allowed redemption on payment of export duties, fines and penalties under sections 125 and 114(ii) ibid vide adjudication orders No. 646/2010, 641/2010 and 645/2010 all dated 7.12.2010. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 30.10.2010 upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeals. Hence these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certified that the leather satisfies‟ the norms and conditions laid down in the said Public Notice. All the types of finished leather is declared. 2.6 Ld. counsel drew attention to copy of the certificate of CLRI issued on the basis of the samples sent by department dated 16.10.2009 in page 39 of the appeal book wherein the same sample has been certified as not satisfying the norms and conditions laid down in the public notice. 2.7 This type of discrepancy cannot be accepted for same sample. Ld. counsel further submits that in the report given to department, the leather has been termed cow softy upper leather (crunch) and color olive whereas in the sample sent by them the leather has been described as cow lining leather and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) when tested on SATRA rub fastness tester for both dry and wet rubbing . 5.1 The ld. counsel was at pains to argue that the said Public Notice discussed is outdated. Be that as it may, when that is the only method of ascertaining the correctness of the type of leathers declared, that too by a recognized institute of national importance, have to be accepted. Interestingly, we find that in the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellants have enclosed a subsequent copy of Public Notice No.21/2004 dated 1.12.2009 also issued by DGFT concerning the latest leather norms. It is therefore obvious that the concerned authorities have been also seized of the matter and have issued revised norms as per the said notification. The exports in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , namely of almost nine years would surely have caused at least some perceptible, if not irreversible changes in the physical or other characteristics of the samples. For these reasons, the miscellaneous application for retesting is dismissed. 5.4 We also find that the adjudicating authorities in each of these appeals have been quite reasonable in their adjudication. In the first place, relating to FOB value, the redemption fine for export imposed under section 125 ibid as also the penalty imposed under section114(ii) are quite reasonable, just and fair, as under:- Shipping Bill FOB Value Redemption fine Penalty 3969869 8,36,534 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
