9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Customs (Port), Customs House, Kolkata. Appeal No. 75072 of 2020 is filed by the Proprietor of the importer firm Shri Rahul Jhajharia. In both appeals, the prayer is to set aside the impugned order. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed 41 bills of entry describing the imported products as "machinery oil" under CTH 27101950 and "machinery lubricating oil" under CTH 27101980. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] received intelligence that importers were mis-declaring base oil as machinery oil and also mis-classifying it in order to evade duty. The intelligence further indicated that the average price of base oil is about US $ 900-1100 per M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six only) arrived at under Section 18 (2) read with Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the re-determined assessable value and order for finalization of all the (41 Nos.) provisionally assessed Bills of Entry accordingly. IV. I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods for home consumption on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. V. I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) on M/s JJR Associates (now RSD Natural Resources India (P) Ltd.) under the provision of Section 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for their acts of omission and commission which rendered the subject goods liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of CRCL, New Delhi showed that the samples tested by them may be base oil of various grades. We find that this report also does not say definitely that the samples were of base oil and not machinery oil as declared ; (d) Reports from M/s Barlmer Lawrie & Co. to whom the appellant had supplied base oil in response to their tenders and the test reports confirmed that the goods supplied by the importer made their specifications. 5. In their appeals, the appellants contended that the learned Commissioner had failed to understand that the reports of both CRCL, Kolkata and CRCL, New Delhi are inclusive. While CRCL Kolkata opined it as "prima facie the consignment of being base oil" the CRCL, New Delhi had opined it as "sample tested by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove its case and contest the expert opinion. In this case, while the test reports that have been relied upon as recorded in the impugned order only suggested that the goods "may be base oil" and NOT that "they are base oil". Further, the reports also do not say that the goods are "not machinery oil" as described by the importer. Thus, there is an ambiguity in the test reports. On the other hand, the appellant is said to have sold the goods to M/s Barlmer Lawrie & Co. as "base oil" and that on testing by the buyer, the oil met the parameters of base oil. In this factual matrix, we find that there is a need to allow the appellant to cross-examine all the chemical examiners whose test reports were relied upon in the impugned order so that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
