9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it as "Sheep Nubuck (Snuffed) Finished Leather". The officers of customs doubted the description of the goods. However, the export was allowed without waiting for the test report based on an undertaking given by the exporter. Sample of the export consignment was sent by Customs officers to Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) for testing who confirmed that the consignment does not conform to the description. Export of leather is restricted unless it conforms to the Public Notice No.92-97 dt. 27.5.1992 issued by DGFT. Accordingly, the original authority vide his order dt. 09.09.2009 held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 113 (i) & (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a redemption fine under Section 125 of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the same as follows. "The leather sample which was submitted by you through your Letter No:S.Misc.50/2009-Exp.Exam dated 27.07.2009 (declared as Sheep Nubuck (Snuffed) finished leather) was tested as per the public notice that was in force that time 3-ETC-PN (1992-97) dated 27.05.1992 and the certificate issued as not a finished leather under the category of sheep nubuck leather (as per declaration) due the absence of snuffing to produce velvety nap. Since there was no nubuck leather listed under the sheep skin leathers, the leather was assessed as (VI) (1) (L) which is the cow nubuck leather. Irrespective of the substrate, the snuffing to produce velvety nap is the critical norm for deciding if a given leather is nubuck leather or n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asserts that the impugned order is correct and calls for no interference. 5. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. As is evident from the second test report of CLRI dt. 27.12.2010 reproduced above, the sample was tested by CLRI to see if it matches the description in the shipping bill. In the first test report, it was tested on the specifications for "Nubuck Leather of cows or buffaloes" while the description of the goods by the appellant was "Sheep Nubuck leather". The second sample was ordered to be tested which was tested and it was again confirmed that it is not Nubuck Leather at all as the process of snuffing essential for making nubuck leather has not been undertaken. From the above, it is clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no confiscation under Section 113 (d) for export or attempted export in violation of the prohibitions under Foreign Trade Policy or any other law. We, therefore, find that the argument of the Ld. counsel that their goods were not prohibited from export under Foreign Trade Policy and the Public Notice issued therein does not come to their rescue because there is no confiscation on this count at all. The only confiscation was on the ground that the appellant has described the goods wrongly. We find that the second test report confirms that the goods were not which were described in the shipping bill. For this reason, we find that confiscation of the goods under Section 113 and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
