TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the BIS Authorities. In such an event also if discrepancy is noticed Circular No. 30/2017-Cus. dated 18.07.2017 at clause (f) of para 2 that permits redrawal of sample even for a second test could have been resorted to and the second Test report could have been accepted. This was not invoked by the adjudicating authority namely, Additional Commissioner of Customs, Gr.-VI, NS-V, JNCH nor by the Commissioner (Appeals) before passing his subsequent order for which, on the request of the appellant, a direction was given by this Bench to redraw sample from the seized imported goods and get the same tested at the Bureau of Indian Standards. In obedience to such order dated 06.10.2020 test was carried out and BIS authorities have submitted thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the importer appellant in this appeal. 2. I have heard the submissions from both the sides at length the other day. 3. The primary ground for rejection of the BIS officials test report submitted by the importer appellant before the adjudication authority was that the sample forwarded by the dock officer to the concerned group was different from the photographs annexed to the test report as reveals from para 16 of ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL dated 12.02.2020 passed, subsequent to the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in the first round of litigation. Photographs being secondary piece of evidence which appearances can vary with the angle of photography, it should not form the basis of his decision that the goods are LED chains and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are LED Modules standard IS 16103 and the Port Duty Officer, Mumbai forwarded the same report received through e-mail to the respondent department with a cover note that for such item compulsory BIS registration mark is not required. These two e-mail printouts are accepted as additional evidence as per Rule 23 clause (3) of the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1992 to arriving at a conclusion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for absolute confiscation of imported goods does not stand the test of law and the same is required to be set aside. Hence the order Order 4. The appeal is allowed and order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on dated 26.06.2020 vide Order No. 767 (Gr. VI)/2020 (JNCH)/Appeal-II is hereby set aside. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
