TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported in terms of the said order. On being asked as to how the earlier certificate did not raise this objection, CLRI clarified that sample tested earlier was not the same as the one sent by the Customs. There are force in the submissions of the learned counsel as in the entire order there is no finding that the impugned leather was not finished leather or was semi-finished leather and the only finding is that does not satisfy the norms and conditions for the type of finished leather as declared. There is no other evidence to suggest any contumacious conduct or deliberate mis-declaration. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal Nos. 53292 of 2015 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50536/2017 - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - MR. JUST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by CSIR Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai vide their letter No. CLRI/TAN-FLC/0679/14 dated 27.11.2014. Accordingly, export proceedings were initiated against the Shipping Bills. However, to verify the genuineness of goods, CLRI, Chennai, was contacted and the CLRI officials from Jalandhar office came on 30.12.2014 and selected the sample of leather. CLRI, Chennai vide letter no. CLRI/TAN/CUSTOMS/TUG/0004/15 dated 09.01.2015 forwarded the report stating that the sample DOES NOT SATISFY the norms and conditions laid down in the Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009 for the type of Finished Leather as declared. Thus the reports received from CLRI, Chennai itself clearly indicated that the goods were not in conformity t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e colour along with certificate of Central Leather Institute (CLRI). Customs drew sample of the goods and sent it for testing to CLRI which certified that sample did not satisfy the norms and conditions laid down in the Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009 on the ground that there was absence of finishing coat, without which the goods cannot be allowed to be exported in terms of the said order. On being asked as to how the earlier certificate did not raise this objection, CLRI clarified that sample tested earlier was not the same as the one sent by the Customs. It further appears that this is a case where the dispute has arisen on account of divergent opinions of CLLRI as in the first report dated 08.09.2014, the leather was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
