9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantities under bills of entry numbers 940205 dated 22.3.2010, 940191 dated 22.3.2010, 938696 dated 10.3.2010 and 940190 dated 22.3.2010. They declared the description of goods under import as polyester fabrics. In respect of bill of entry no. 938696 dated 10.3.2010 they claimed classification under CTH no. 54075210 whereas for the other three bills of entry, classification was claimed under CTH 5407 5220. All the bills of entry were subjected to first check examination and samples were drawn from the consignment and forwarded to the textile committee for test. The textile committee after testing the fabrics reported that the sample characteristic as woven fabric and the warp and weft are polyester and pile are polyester plus polyamides v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Mahendra Jain, director of the appellant firm. The said order was contested before this appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 07.4.2011 remanded the case for denovo adjudication on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not violated while adjudicating and the order was passed without putting the assessee to notice on the various issues. In compliance to the said order, a notice dated 05.5.2011 was issued to the appellant proposing ? (i) to classify the goods under importation under CTH 5801 3200; (ii) to reject the declared value of imports under rule 12 of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 and to redetermine the same under Rule 6 of the said rules; (iii) to confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also wanted to department to give copies of the correspondence exchanged between the department and the textile committee and the various replies received from the Textile Committee. 3.2 The ld. counsel further argued that the value of the goods under importation is sought to be revised on the basis of a bill of entry no. 809005 dated 10.7.2009. In that case also the goods were imported declaring a value of US $0.65/mtr and not at US $1.4/mtr as alleged in the notice. The assessed value of US $1.4/mtr was arrived after loading the value of transaction value at US $0.65/mtr and this value corresponds to the value declared by them in respect of the impugned goods. He also contended that they had also furnished NIDB data giving details of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up the appeal itself for consideration and disposal. 6. During the course of hearing, a specific query was put to the appellant as to whether they would like to get the retest of the goods under import done as requested by them before the adjudicating authority. The ld. advocate submitted that they did not want any retest of the goods and would agree to the classification under CTH no. 5801 3200 as held in the impugned order. We have also perused the tariff entries and the test reports. As per the retest reports of the Textile Committee, the fabric consists of cut weft pile and is corduroy and it is a polyester fabric. CTH 5801 3200 covers cut corduroy of man made fabrics where the weft is a pile. Therefore, the fabric under importation, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rule 5. In other words, the proposal in the show-cause notice and the redetermination of the adjudication order are completely contrary to the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules and on that ground alone, the redetermined value made by the adjudicating authority has to be set aside. Even under Rule 5, the redetermination made by the department will not sustain for following reasons. The imports in this case have been made in March, 2010. The value adopted for comparison relates to bill of entry no. 809005 dated 10.7.2009. The import made in July, 2009 cannot be said to be contemporaneous to the imports made in March, 2010. Further it is seen that in respect of the said bill of entry also, the importer had declared a unit price of US $0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import document per se on the bonafide belief that the classification is correct cannot make the goods liable to confiscation and the appellant cannot be imposed with penalty on account of a bonafide conduct. In any case, the goods have been subjected to first check, i.e., before the assessment of the goods, the goods were subjected to examination by the department. As has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Health & Nutrition (supra), merely because the appellant had claimed a wrong classification, it cannot be held that the appellant has misdeclared the goods, as it is for the customs authorities to assess the bill of entry and correctly classify the imported goods. In the instant case the description given in the bill of ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
