9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 1-3-2013 - Shri P.G. Chacko and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri Thomas Kuriyan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER In appeal No. C/182/2006, the challenge is by an importer of light-weight coated paper and is against demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,35,390/- on a consignment of such goods covered by Bill of Entry dated 12-7-2004. The importer had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 [Sl. No. 156 which prescribed 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and 16% Additional Customs Duty (CVD)]. The Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed to duty of Rs. 1,72,616/- at merit rate (20% + 16% + 0.125% + 2%). However, the goods were allowed to be clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rusal of the records and hearing both sides, we find that Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., at Sl. No. 156 thereof, prescribed concessional rate of BCD (5%) for light-weight coated paper weighing up to 70 g/m2, imported by actual users for printing of magazines . The department has no case that the goods imported by the appellant were not actually used for the said purpose. The case of the Revenue appears to be wholly based on the test report which shows average GSM of 72. We further find that, though a copy of the test report was made available to the party along with the show-cause notice, they did not contest it before the adjudicating authority. Even in their appeal preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals), they did not raise any grievance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997-2002 was considered by the Tribunal and its benefit given to the party. On the facts of the present case, there is only one test report which we have already considered as binding on the importer for stated reasons and the same furnishes average GSM of 72. Moreover, in the cited case, the imported paper was claimed to be hygroscopic and this claim was accepted by the Tribunal. In the instant case, there is no such claim by the appellant. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the decision cited by the learned counsel is of no aid to the appellant. 5. The learned counsel has also referred to Note 7 under Chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, which reads thus :- For the purpose of sub-heading 4810.22, light-weight coa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
