9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame as synthetic waste with predominance of acrylic staple fibre with wide variation in denier and length containing both drawn and undrawn fibres. The appellant claimed the clearance of the consignment without payment of duty under Notification No. 117/88-Cus. under Import Licence dated 29-9-89 which allows the import of synthetic waste having pre-dominance of acrylic staple fibre with wide variation in denier and length containing both drawn and undrawn fibres under the Import -Export Pass Book Scheme. The Customs authorities on examination found that the bales are having manufacturers, label showing the goods as Acrylic Staple Fibre of Commercial quantity Bright. The 48 samples were drawn and were sent for Chemical examination to M/s. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allegation that goods are synthetic staple fibre. The appellant also relied upon the observation made by the Chemical Examiner in both the reports to show that goods in question are waste fibre. The contention is that in view of these reports, the goods in question cannot be held to be synthetic staple fibre. The appellant relied upon the HSN Explanatory notes and submits that under Chapter 55 the synthetic staple fibre are usually press-packed in bales. The fibres are generally of uniform length, which distinguishes them from the waste material. The contention is that the fibre imported by the appellant is not of uniform length, therefore, it is out of the scope of heading synthetic staple fibre and it will go under heading waste of man- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods under the import licence. The description was changed by white fluid in the original writing and subsequently it was typed as synthetic waste/soft quality with predominance of acrylic staple fibre with wide variation so that the benefit of the exemption notification can be made by the appellant. The contention of revenue is also that 48 samples taken from the include goods sent to IPCL and all the samples were tested by the Chemical Examiner and detailed report was given and as per the opinion of Chemical Examiner, the goods were not staple fibre. The contention is that as the importer was contesting the Chemical Examiner of IPCL, the adjudicating authority sent the samples to CRCL, New Delhi and as per the report of CRCL, the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No doubt in the subject it is mentioned that analysis of samples sent by DRI but in the beginning of report it is mentioned the testing of sample No. I. The appellant asked for cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner which was denied. It is not clear from the report whether it is in respect of all the samples sent by revenue or in respect of one sample i.e. sample No. I. Further we find that during proceedings, samples were sent to CRCL, New Delhi and this report was not supplied to the appellant and adjudicating authority relied upon in this test report given by CRCL first time in the impugned order. 7. The revenue no doubt relied upon the documents recovered during the investigation which shows that there are certain changes made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
