TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and carries a higher rate of duty. The appellants submitted their explanation by their letter dated 13-7-1990 and sought adjudication after being heard in the matter. During the proceedings before the Additional Collector, the appellants also produced a certificate from a Textile Technologist, Sh. Anil Gupte, who opined on inspection of the consignment that the goods are hard waste only. The Additional Collector rejected this evidence pointing out that the inspection by the expert was not shown to have been as per Imported Packages (Opening) Regulations, 1963 in the presence of proper officer of Customs. The Additional Collector also held that technically also source of hard waste and soft waste are different and that it was also difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt inspected by a textile expert one Shri Anil Gupte and had submitted his certificate that the consignment was only hard waste before Additional Collector during adjudication proceedings but the Additional Collector had not given it due consideration and in this context, further, referred to the permission obtained by them from the C.W. Corporation for such inspection which is on record. The learned Counsel urged that no valid ground has been made out to over rule the evidence of expert opinion. 3. Sh. J.N. Nair, learned D.R. contended in this case after initial percent- age examination of the goods, a 100% examination of the goods had been undertaken in the presence of appellants representatives and the consignment was found to consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em being tightly packed and constant friction between the entangled waste same have opened up but nevertheless cannot be classified as soft waste. The consignment has been correctly classified as synthetic hard waste". 5. This opinion had been relied upon in the proceedings before the Additional Collector. The rejection of this expert opinion on the ground that no permission from proper officer of Customs as required under the Regulations for such inspection had been taken has been rebutted by the appellants who have produced the permission obtained from the custodian of the goods from the C.W. Corporation. In any case the Additional Collector in fairness could have obtained the opinion of the Departmental Chemical Examiner or could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|