9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of goods - whether 5.4% fibrous mass should be considered soft waste. 2. Allegation of misdeclaration and evasion of duty. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. Analysis: 1. The appellants filed a bill of entry for the clearance of synthetic waste declared as hard waste. The department found 5.4% fibrous mass in the consignment and alleged misdeclaration to evade duty. The Addl. Collector held the 5.4% as soft waste and imposed penalties. The appellants contended that the fibrous mass was fly waste with no value. The Tribunal noted that 94.6% was hard waste and questioned if the 5.4% could be segregated and sold as soft waste. The department failed to prove segregation and marketability as soft waste. The Tribunal applied trade understanding and granted benefit of doubt to the importer, setting aside the order. 2. The importer argued that the 5.4% fibrous mass was fly waste with no market value. The Addl. Collector held the goods liable for confiscation and imposed penalties for alleged misdeclaration to evade duty. The appellants challenged these findings, stating the predominance of hard waste and the negligible nature of the disputed soft waste. The Tribunal found no evidence of segregation or marketability of the 5.4% fibrous mass as soft waste. As the charge of suppression was not proven, the benefit of doubt was given to the importer, leading to setting aside of the order. 3. The Addl. Collector held the 5.4% fibrous mass as soft waste, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellants contended that the fibrous mass was fly waste with no value and questioned the higher duty rate charged. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting segregation and marketability of the disputed soft waste. Relying on trade understanding, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the importer, setting aside the order and providing consequential relief, if any.
|
