9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Chief Chemist’s report is travelling beyond the duty and cannot be relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority or the First Appellate Authority to classify the product imported by the appellant. The appellant had produced certificate from the exporter which indicates that the material shipped to the main appellant is post processed industrial material from manufacturing process which is rejected. Such a certificate is accepted by the First Appellate Authority to come to a conclusion that the Carpet is sent to appellant for conversion into granule form for reuse in USA. If the certificate given by the exporter is accepted and the appellant being a unit situated in a SEZ, the question of duty liability, if any, may not arise. LOP permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles. The appellant No.1 filed Bill of Entry No. 15/02-03 dtd 6.5.02 for import of Mixed Plastic Scrap generated from manufacturing process under CTH 3915.90. The goods were examined and samples were sent for testing to Central Excise Customs Laboratory, Vadodara. The test result showed that the import goods were Carpet of which pile are made of Polyamide Yarn. These yarns are woven with a woven based fabric made of polypropylene yarn and adhesioned on woven fabric of jute/polypropylene. It is not a plastic scrap. The article is not a plastic material therefore, the Public Notice No. 392/(PN)/92-97 dtd 1.1.07 is not applicable for the article under reference. The Chemical Examiner further opined that the result of chemical analysis in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of used and defective Carpet v/a ₹ 8,76,610/- under seizure were confiscated u/s 111(d), (m), (n) and (o) of the Customs Act 1962 with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-. * Confirmed demand of customs duty ₹ 4,98,855/- u/s 28(1) of the Customs Act 1962; * Imposed penalty of ₹ 4,98,855/- on appellant No.1 u/s 114A of the Customs Act 1962; * Imposed personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on appellant No. 2 u/s 111(b) of the Customs Act 1962. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority; was dismissed/rejected the appeals which was taken further to the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with the appellant despite their being communication from the appellant to take back such goods. He would rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs vs. East West Exporter 1991(52) ELT. 66 (Tri.) for the proposition a chemical examiner has to give only his findings and not enter into dialogue expressing the opinion of classification of goods. He also relied upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Finolex Cables Ltd vs. CCE 1996 (86) ELT 418 (Tri.) scrap of PVC compound is classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 3915.00 of the Central Excise Act 1985 waste bearing and scrap of plastics, that the products imported by the appellant are of the nature of plastic is cleared from the Dy. Chief Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Examiner report which reads as under: Carpet of which pile are made of Polyamide Yarn. These yarns are woven and woven based fabric made of Polypropylene Yarn and adhesioned on woven fabric of Jute/Polypropylene. It is not a plastic scrap. The article is not a plastic material therefore, the Public Notice No. 392(PN)92-97 dtd 1.1.2007 is not plastic for the article under preference. As a result of chemical analysis indicates that the article under reference cannot be classified under sub heading No. 3915.50 of Customs Tariff and on the basis of analysis the article under preference should be classified under the category of Carpet under SG 5702.32 of Customs Tariff Act 1975. From the above reproduced test report, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of duty liability, if any, may not arise. Thirdly, on perusal of the LOP No. KFTZ/IA/ 1679/97/ 5926 dtd 15.10.1997 we find that the said LOP permits the appellant to import various plastic materials for conversion and re-exporting. The said LOP also indicates that they can import any other category of plastic/wastes like flake, powders, pieces of irregular sheets. As we have already reproduced above, the chemical analysis of the sample sent to Dy Chief Chemist specifically indicates that the sample is made of Polyamide yarn. This would indicate that the basic material of the so called carpet is nothing but plastic and the said wastes and scrap is consumed by the appellant for crushing them into granules for re-exporting. In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
