9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 under section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 through their authorised customs broker under the invoice issued by PPI, Republic of Korea for clearance of goods declared as "PLC Splitter Module". The said bill was self assessed by the importer in terms of section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were examined 100% on first check basis and the goods were found as per the invoice and bill of entry. 3. The importer sought duty exemption under the Notification No. 12/ 2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012, Sr. No. 376, List No. 21 & Sr. No. 15 where duty benefit is granted for "Microlens and Splitter". The goods imported by the appellant did not have lenses and therefore did not meet the criteria of the exemption under the said notification for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant then submitted a test report dated 14.08.2014 of Dr Y K Prajapati, Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad which confirmed the presence of microlens inside the "Splitter Module". 6. Here the appellant tried to claim the benefit of the exemption notification which as per the specifications was not available to them. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 19.05.2015 was issued to the appellant as to why the goods should not be confiscated under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act and why penalty be not imposed under section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. Since the goods were provisionally released redemption fine should not be impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haragpur merits more attention and credibility. 10. The appellant had also obtained an expert opinion from Dr. Y. K. Prajapati, Assistant Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad but the authenticity of the sample sent for testing was not there, as it was not sure that it pertained to the same consignment and therefore no reliance could be placed on it. However, we feel that when two contradictory expert opinion were on record, the proper course for the authorities below was to send the sample for a third report, which could have conclusively decided the issue. The failure to do so is improper which could not be rectified at this late stage. 11. As per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
