9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iner Freight Station, Tuticorin that there some undeclared fabric bales were found in addition to the declared cargo, the officers of Customs attached to the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch of Custom House, Tuticorin took up detailed inventory of the cargo in the presence of 2 independent witnesses. On 100% examination of total 787 bales, the discrepancy noted in the nature of cargo and the quantity are as follows : Sl. No. Declared Cargo as per Bill of Entry Cargo found on 100% examination Description Qty No. of Bales Description Qty No. of Bales 1 Polyester Knitted fabrics 13928 Kgs 557 Polyester Knitted fabrics 1720 Kgs 53 2 Viscose synthetic fabrics 28905 Sqm 230 Viscose synthetic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other details, it appeared that the goods were deliberately misdeclared with respect to description, quantity and value with an intention to undervalue the fabrics and to evade customs duties. The entire 787 bales were seized under mahazar dt. 09.01.2017. Statements were recorded. Show cause notice dated 07.07.2017 was issued and corrigendum to the show cause notice dated 04.01.2018 were issued to the appellant requiring them to show cause as to why the declared value should not be rejected and re-determined. It was proposed to demand differential customs duty along with interest and also to impose penalties. Appellant did not reply to the SCN and did not attend personal hearing. The adjudicating authority after examining the records pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962;" Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared on behalf of the appellant. His arguments are summarized as under : 4.1 He submitted that the officers had wrongly concluded that the quantity of high value and duty sensitive VF (Viscose Fabric) was suppressed. Firstly, the fabric was found to be composed of "Polyester woven and Viscose staple fibre" as per the test report and therefore it cannot be termed as "High Value and duty sensitive Viscose Fabric" Secondly, the respondent has given this finding on the assumption that the said fabric has to be classified under CTH 55151130 attracting specific rate of duty in read of ad valorem rate of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les for the interpretation of the Import Tariff under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By reclassifying the fabrics, the department has indirectly denied ad valorem rate of duty and the benefit of Notification No.14/2006-Cus., dated 01.03.2006 as claimed in the Bill of Entry. 4.5 Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of M.B. Marketing Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2017 (357) ELT 636 (Tri.-Del.) to argue that in the said case, the Tribunal held that once the classification determined by the department has been held as not valid, the charge of misdeclaration in respect of description, quantity and value of the goods by way of suppressing of the facts with intention to evade payment of duty cannot be sustained. 4.6 It is furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that the appellant has not filed any reply to the SCN and has not attended the personal hearing. Ld. Counsel has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods are much different than the values given in the table in the SCN. So also, he disputes classification arrived at by the department on the basis of lab test reports. Taking into consideration the lengthy submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has to be given one more chance to contest the case on merits. We find that the matter is fit for remand to the adjudicating authority who is directed to conduct de novo adjudication of the matter. All issues are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
