9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ballabarhgarh, Faridabad. In both the bills of entry declared CIF value of the goods was US$1.15 per kg. The accompanying invoices also described the goods as 100% polyester filament yarn. In both the bills of entry, classification of the goods was claimed under sub-heading no.54034990 of the Tariff. The goods were examined on first check basis and the samples were drawn. The Asstt. Commissioner vide letter dated 11.07.2008 proposed for rejection of the declared transaction value on the ground that as per the test report dated 10.07.2008 received from Textile Committee (Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India), the goods were found to be 100% polyester filament fancy yarn (chenille yarn), which would be correctly classifiable under sub-headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrive at the test results. The CRCL vide test reports dated 22.4.2009 replied that the sample is in the form of strand of offwhite multi filament yarn twisted together in the core gripping short ends of yarn, which standout perpendicularly/slanting throughout its length, that it is wholly composed of polyester, that it is a special type of yarn having complex construction, and that the decitex of the same cannot be ascertained in such type of yarn. Based on the above report of the CRCL, the Asstt. Commissioner after hearing the respondent, finalized the assessment and he rejected the declared transaction value and enhanced the same to US$2.53 per kg. and the duty was assessed under Heading No.56060090 without benefit of notification no.21/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue’s appeal. He pleaded that as per the Textile Committee’s Report the goods imported are chenille yarn, that the report of CRCL is also similar to the test report of Textile committee, that the CRCL attached to the Ministry of Finance and Textile Committee attached to Ministry of Textiles are better equipped to test the goods, in question, for the purpose of classification, as they are well versed with Customs Act, Customs Tariff and their reports revolve around HSN Explanatory Notes whereas the report of NITRA does not refer to the HSN Explanatory Notes and that these facts have been completely ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -heading 56060090) is ruled-out, the report of the CRCL is inclusive as it is silent as to whether the characteristics of the yarn, in question, are those of chenille yarn and it does not give any conclusion. We do not accept the Revenue’s plea that preference should be given to the report of Textile Committee or CRCL as compared to the report of NITRA. Therefore, it is the report of NITRA, which would have to be relied. If the adjudicating authority had doubts about the correctness of the report of NITRA, he could have called the chemical examiner of NITRA for cross examination for ascertaining as to which testing method has been adopted and what is the basis for his conclusion, but his has not been done. In view of this, we do not find an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
