9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed concessional assessment under Notification No. 32/86 read with Notification No. 126/86 at 100% + 45% without C.V. duty. The value of the consignment was declared at Rs. 78,636,95 P. CIF and Rs. 79,227/- as assessable value. They also filed Import licence dated 16-3-1988 of M/s. Nupur Carpets Ltd., Srinagar which had been transferred in their favour and another licence dated 22-3-1988 of M/S. Bazaz Orient Teppione, Srinagar, also transferred in their favour. The goods have been examined by selecting 10% of the bales in the presence of DRI staff. The representative samples were drawn, sealed and sent for test in the presence of the importers/clearing agent. The chemical report revealed that 5.4% of the representative samples were found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the consignment. It was also submitted during the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority that the fibrous mass and fibrous dust were of no value to them and that the duty should not be charged on the fly waste as it had no market value. During the personal hearing, the question of enhancement of value came up and the same was decided by the importer by relying on a letter from M/s. Kadokura Co. Japan. 3. The learned Addl. Collector held that the department had failed to establish the case of enhancement of value of soft waste as it was not supported by any invoice and accepted the importer s plea of the goods being of acrylic variety. However, he rejected the appellants contention that 5.4% of the goods were fly waste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old in the market as soft waste. There is no market enquiry carried out by the department to consider this 5.4% of fibrous mass to be soft waste. It is now well settled that the goods have to be classified according to the understanding in the trade and commercial parlance. There is no dispute with regard to the classification of the goods but it is only with regard to a small portion which is disputed as soft waste and the benefit of Notification No. 32/86 dated 7-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 126/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, is being denied to that negligible portion. The department has not placed any evidence that this negligible quantity has not arisen in the spinning section of hard waste and is not unavoidable and also could be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
