TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed view that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the test with regard to the imported goods of the petitioner viz., lining materials is conducted once again by a reputed laboratory engaged by the respondents to find out whether the imported goods contain Polyurethane or not and the cost for the same will have to be necessarily borne by the petitioner. The impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anti-Dumping Duty. However, according to the petitioner, the lining material does not contain Polyurethane and it contains only Polyethelene and therefore, they are not liable to pay Anti-Dumping Duty. Before the respondents, the petitioner had produced a laboratory report based on samples of the imported goods, which reveals that the lining material imported by the petitioner does not contain Pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has raised several grounds for challenging the impugned order. They would contend that the procedure prescribed under the circular dated 18-7-2017 of the respondents has not been followed. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would now submit on instructions that if the samples of the imported goods of the petitioner are tested once again by an independent laboratory, truth will come out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll have to be necessarily borne by the petitioner. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 1-11-2022 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration with regard to the issue as to whether the imported goods of the petitioner under the Bill of Entry dated 16-7-2022 contains Polyurethane or not with the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
