9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of Glove Parts were also found. These goods were not declared in the Bill of Entry. After investigation, the case was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Customs, who ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed. The goods were assessed as leather glove parts (articles of leather) under Heading No. 42.01/06 of the erstwhile Tariff. This order of the Deputy Collector of Customs was challenged by the importer without success before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The importer filed an appeal to the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Hon`ble Tribunal vide their Order No. C/2448/86-D, dt. 30- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, ld. Consultant, Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, referred to the Misc. Application filed by them to call for sample of the goods and from the side of the Department, ld. S.D.R., Shri M.K. Jain, submitted that the case records are not available as reported by the Collector and in the circumstances it was prayed that the appeal may be heard on the basis of available evidence. Shri Kumaraswamy, ld. Consultant, showed certain leather pieces as samples of the goods imported and argued that the appellants had imported stamping machines and leather splits which are, according to the appellants, nothing but waste leather that had been used in order to provide a buffer to the machines when packed in the containers. The ld. Consultant submitted that these a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port the department s case. 5. The submissions made by both the sides have been carefully considered. The question is whether the goods imported are `parings and other waste of leather falling under Heading 41.02/10 CTA and exempt under Notification 60/85, as claimed by the appellants, or, whether the goods are classifiable under Heading 42.01/06 as `other articles of leather which is the case of the Department. Examining the rival contentions, it is seen that the suppliers themselves have not described the goods as parings or splits. In their telex No. 3127-35-07-03 sent to the appellants, they have described the goods as pairs of backs/cuffs for style M 80 and similar gloves. The figures drawn of the goods in the examination report on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
