2005 (10) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods as waste of man-made fiber or acrylic staple fiber.
2. Cross-examination of Chemical Examiners from IPCL and CRCL.
3. Manipulation in the bill of lading and description of goods.
4. Adjudication based on reports from IPCL and CRCL.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Mis-declaration of imported goods
The appellant imported goods declared as waste of man-made fiber with acrylic staple fiber, seeking duty exemption under a specific notification. However, Customs authorities found the goods labeled as acrylic staple fiber of commercial quality bright. Chemical examination reports from IPCL and CRCL conflicted, with the appellant arguing the goods were waste fiber based on HSN Explanatory notes. The adjudicating authority held the goods were staple fiber, leading to confiscation and penalties.

Issue 2: Cross-examination of Chemical Examiners
The appellant requested cross-examination of the Chemical Examiners from IPCL and CRCL, but the authority denied it, stating CRCL was not initially involved. The appellant contested the findings based on lack of cross-examination and discrepancies in the reports. The Tribunal emphasized the need for cross-examination and remanded the case for this purpose, highlighting the importance of clarifying the examination details.

Issue 3: Manipulation in bill of lading
The revenue alleged manipulation in the bill of lading to evade duty, supported by changes in goods description and labels. The appellant argued against mis-declaration, emphasizing discrepancies in the examination reports. The Tribunal noted the conflicting evidence and ordered reconsideration, suggesting further examination and clarification on the description discrepancies.

Issue 4: Adjudication based on examination reports
The adjudicating authority relied on reports from IPCL and CRCL, despite discrepancies and lack of cross-examination. The revenue defended the decision based on investigation findings and manipulation claims. However, the Tribunal found the need for proper cross-examination and clarification on the examination details, setting aside the order for reconsideration with an opportunity for cross-examination.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh decision after allowing cross-examination of the Chemical Examiners, emphasizing the importance of clarifying discrepancies and ensuring a fair adjudication process.