9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be having non-texturised filament yarn. As per the appellant, the present consignment was a part of the total contract with their overseas suppliers and earlier also they had imported three consignments of identical goods from the same supplier and they were cleared by classifying them as consisting of non-texturised filament yarn under Heading 5407.61. The above classification in earlier consignments was adopted by the Revenue based upon the test result of the Custom House Chemical Examiner. The Customs drew one sample from the present consignment also and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner, Calcutta Customs House. The Custom House Laboratory s test report was forwarded under their letter head 31-1-2001. It was revealed in the said re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been given for rejecting the opinion of the Custom House Laboratory. Inasmuch as the Textile Commissioner is not the Apex Body for conducting such tests and may not be fully equipped for doing above tests, the same may be tendered for cross-examination. They also contended that in all the earlier three importations, the goods were found to be containing 85% or more by weight of non-texturised Polyester Filament and there is no justification for holding the goods as made of texturised yarn. 3. The above contentions of the appellant were not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority who, by relying upon the test report of Textile Commissioner held the goods as properly classifiable under Heading 5407.52, thus confirmed the differential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an the Custom House. As such, his opinion should not weigh more than the opinion of the Chemical Examiner of the Custom House. In addition there is a test report by SASMIRA, supporting the findings of the Chemical Examiner of the Custom House. As such, when there are two test reports in favour of the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority was not justified in ignoring the same and basing his decision on the basis of the sole contrary opinion of the Textile Commissioner. It has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court that where there are conflicts between opinions of experts the benefits should go to the assessee. 5. Shri A.K. Mondal, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the Commissioner was justified relying upon the Text ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without dealing with the appellant s contention that Textile Committee is mainly dealing with the Jute Textile and does not have sufficient mechanism to arrive at the correct report. 6. In view of the two different and contrary reports of two different statutory bodies, in normal circumstances, we would have sent the matter back to the Commissioner with directions to get the sample tested from the Chief Chemical Examiner, CRCL, New Delhi. However, this course is not being adopted by us, inasmuch as we find that apart from the report of the Chemical Examiner, there is SASMIRA report also which report has not been found to be faulty by the adjudicating authority. No reasons have been given by him as to why the said SASMIRA report which sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
