9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, should be given a chance to rebut the report of the chemical examiner including the misgivings on the manner of drawing of samples and testing thereof. The assessment is required to be done Denovo after giving a copy of the Chemical Examiner Report along with the copy of Test Memo prepared by Customs at the time of drawing the samples - matter is remanded to Original Authority for Denovo Assessment. - Cus. Appeal No. 75240 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO.75437/2019 - Dated:- 11-4-2019 - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S. K. Naskar, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri S. C. Mohanty, Advocate for the Respondent OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be increased by USD 0.386 PDMT for each 1% Fe, above 57%, fraction pro rata. 2.4 In the present case the discharge port analysis report revealed that Fe content of the export consignment is 57.53% and the moisture as 9.35%. 2.5 Based on Fe content of 57.53%, determined at the discharge port on DMT basis, the price of the export goods was determined in terms of the contract, which was admittedly remitted by the overseas buyers, as evident from the Bank Realization Certificate (BRC), submitted by the respondent, to the jurisdictional Customs authorities. Accordingly, the final invoice was prepared by the respondent and submitted to the said authorities for final assessment of shipping bill. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal. 4. The Ld. DR arguing the grounds of appeal submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously extended the benefit of the Notification No.15/2016-Cus dt. 01/03/2016. He submitted that the Fe content of the export goods have been ascertained at 62.4%, which is more than the limit specified in the said notification. Accordingly, he submitted that the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside. 5. Shri S. C. Mohanty, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent supports the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). His argument is summarized below:- (i) Test Report of the Chemical Examiner has been relied upon by the Original Authority to deny the benefit of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... citing the reason that they were drawn without the presence of Customs Officer. The test report by the Departmental Chemical Examiner indicated the Fe content to be 62.4%. But this test report is disputed by the respondent with the argument that samples were drawn behind the back of the exporter; were not withdrawn and sealed as per the Indian Standard specifications and further that the samples were tested after an inordinate delay of two months during which the moisture content could have changed. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the Fe content is to be estimated on the basis of discharge Port Report by ignoring the report of the Chemical Examiner. 9. In view of the above facts, it is evident that copy of test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
