TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the goods, i.e. Microlens and Splitter are only entitled to the benefit of exemption. Though the sample was taken in the presence of the appellant from the consignment imported, however he raised doubts on the veracity of the test report. As per the settled principles of law, the competency of the expert opinion cannot be doubted. The opinion of expert in the field of trade, who deals in those goods cannot be ignored rather due importance has to be given, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Konkan Synthetics Fibres [ 2012 (3) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT ]. Therefore, the expert opinion given in the test report by the IIT, Delhi is not open to challenge. The High Court of Calcutta in Collector of Customs Vs. National insulated C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NICAL) AND MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-I/IMPORT/NCH/186/2019-20 dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, New Delhi. 2. The appellant filed the bill of entry No. 5387305 dated 03.05.2014 under section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 through their authorised customs broker under the invoice issued by PPI, Republic of Korea for clearance of goods declared as PLC Splitter Module . The said bill was self assessed by the importer in terms of section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st report dated 21.8.2014 was received from the IIT, Delhi through Professor Thyagarajan who tested the sample and found that there was no microlens in the said sample. 5. The appellant on his own sent a sample to Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, however, it is disputed that the sample provided by the appellant was from the same consignment which were imported by them under the bill of entry number 5387305 dated 03.05.2014. The appellant then submitted a test report dated 14.08.2014 of Dr Y K Prajapati, Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad which confirmed the presence of microlens inside the Splitter Module . 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f expert in the field of trade, who deals in those goods cannot be ignored rather due importance has to be given, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Konkan Synthetics Fibres, MANU/SC/0272/2012. Therefore, the expert opinion given in the test report by the IIT, Delhi is not open to challenge. The High Court of Calcutta in Collector of Customs Vs. National insulated Cable Company Limited, MANU/WB/0334/1993, took the view that the test report of IIT, Kharagpur merits more attention and credibility. 10. The appellant had also obtained an expert opinion from Dr. Y. K. Prajapati, Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad but the authenticity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) and consequently impose the redemption fine. We would like to refer to the decision in Surana Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs MANU/SC/0481/2015 where the Apex Court, in similar circumstances set aside the penalty amount of Rs. Six lakhs in the interest of justice while maintaining the impugned order, observed as :- 3. This is also in the fitness of things considering that the National Metallurgical Laboratory had differed from the other expert opinions and therefore there were two views possible. 12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly and the impugned order is modified by upholding the demand of differential duty but setting aside the confiscation, fine and penalty. (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
