2003 (9) TMI 428 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Allegation of using acrylic waste instead of first-quality acrylic fiber in exported yarn.

Analysis:
1. The Department alleged that the yarn exported was made from acrylic waste, not first-quality acrylic fiber. The appellant argued that they maintained proper records and that the customs laboratory confirmed the yarn was dyed acrylic but couldn't confirm if it was spun from virgin fiber. The Textile Committee's opinion, relied upon by the Department, was challenged as not being based on textile experts' opinions. Evidence from BTRA, SASMIRA, and Ludhiana Spinners Association supported the appellant's claim that there was no method to determine if the yarn was from waste or prime fiber. The Textile Committee's lack of experience and failure to provide exact denier of the yarn were also highlighted.

2. The learned DR supported the lower authorities' order. However, after considering both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found that previous consignments were cleared without issue. The action against the impugned consignment was solely based on the Textile Committee's report, which lacked expert opinions and authoritative references. Contrary opinions from BTRA, SASMIRA, and Ludhiana Spinners Association, along with evidence that short fibers in waste fiber cannot be spun into yarn, favored the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the Department failed to prove the use of waste fiber instead of virgin fiber in the yarn, leading to the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.

3. Based on the above findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief deemed necessary. The decision was made in favor of the appellant due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting the Department's allegation of using acrylic waste in the exported yarn.