9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the liability of the appellant to pay duty on imported goods, violation of notification requirements, composition of goods, opportunity of hearing on defense, examination of consignments, and the validity of the appellate authority's order. Liability to pay duty on imported goods: The Chemical Examination reports revealed that the appellant was liable to charge in respect of the impugned goods due to the violation of the requirement of the Notification basing on which import of the goods was made by the respondent. The appellant failed to submit an application for retesting according to the set procedure of law, which led to the conclusion that duty was payable. The use of cotton blended yarn instead of polyester filament yarn in the goods was highlighted, along with the failure to account for the difference between the quantity of polyester yarn imported and end-use in the manufacturing process. Opportunity of hearing on defense: The respondent repeatedly requested retesting of the goods when the Chemical Laboratory report had legal infirmities, but the request was not granted. The respondent was not given an opportunity of hearing on its defense, and a report relied upon by the Revenue was not provided to the Appellant. The appellate authority's detailed examination of the matter, as evident from the appellate order, concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit due to the absence of controverting evidence. Examination of consignments: Out of 87 consignments, samples were drawn from 57 consignments, while 30 consignments remained untested. The appellate authority examined all 30 consignments and found that the adjudication was based on presumptions and assumptions. The composition of the goods in the 57 consignments was also scrutinized, with no evidence found regarding the motive of the respondent. The lack of opportunity for the respondent to rebut the Chemical Laboratory report, which formed the basis of the show cause notice, was highlighted. The failure of Revenue to conduct a retest despite a contest by the respondent supported the appellate authority's conclusion that there was no cogent evidence against the respondent. Validity of the appellate authority's order: After hearing both sides and perusing the records, it was observed that the appellate authority's order was detailed and not controverted by any cogent evidence. The examination of consignments and the lack of legal infirmity in the appellate authority's order led to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals. The cross-objection was also disposed of accordingly.
|
