9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olour Tan, declaring FOB value as Rs. 11009109/-. The goods were consigned to M/s Mondialsea SRL via Del Ronziell 12, 50054 Fucecchio, Italy. The shipping bills were filed under Drawback scheme and exemption from export duty was claimed under Notification 133/2000 dt. 17.10.2000 and the goods claimed to be covered under Public Notice No. 21/2009- 14 dt. 01.12.2009 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The assessment was made provisional in r/o all shipping bills pending test report. The consignment was examined as per norms and representative samples were drawn from the consignment of only three shipping bills. Three samples from three shipping bills were drawn, detail as below:- S/Bill No. Description Package No. Sample No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a consequence of the contention of the appellant, the Director, CLRI was again requested vide letter dt. 17.08.11 to confirm whether the test report sent vide their letter dt. 11.03.11 was actually in r/o sample no. 58/10/CFS/JAL-PKG No. 659 and also to confirm the colour of the sample leather which the appellant had declared as TAN in the export documents. The CLRI vide letter dt. 25.8.11 confirmed that the test report td. 11.03.11 pertained to sample no. 58/10/CFS/JAL-PKG No. 659. Based on the above facts the assessing authority held that "burnish finished leather" exported by the appellant vide shipping bills no. 000193, 000194 and 000195 all dt. 21.01.2011 was not "finished leather" and was therefore liable to charging export duty @6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have not declared the same as "burnishable leather" and had declared that they were claiming S.No.(i) & (xiii) of the Public Notice No.21/2009 dated 1.12.2009. Hence, he argued that the emphasis of the department that it was not burnishable leather under S.No.vi of the Public Notice was not applicable to shipping bill No.194. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. We find that the description of the goods and the conditions applicable from the DGFT Public Notice are different for each of the three 3 shipping bills, which have been placed on record by the appellant page from 21 to 25 of the paper book. Even though the consignee is the same the fact that the goods declared were different for the three shipping bills and different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority on the basis of this report without giving any reason has held that all the goods covered under Shipping Bills No.193, 194 and 195 all dated 24.01.2011 were not eligible for the benefit of exemption from Export Duty in terms of Notification No.133/2000-Cus dated 17.10.2000 which is contrary to the facts and the legal provisions. It is admitted in the impugned order that no sample was drawn out of goods covered under Shipping Bill No.193 dated 24.01.2011 and as per Test Report given by the Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai the sample drawn out Package No.671 from Shipping Bill No.195 dated 24.01.2011 satisfied the norms of the said Public Notice. Therefore, the rest result in the goods covered under shipping bill no.193 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
