9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was Rs.18,29,251/- (FOB). The export consignment consisted of same item of three different colours as detailed in the invoice dated 16.09.2009 filed along with the shipping bill. During the course of examination, the Appraising Officer (Leather Expert) had a doubt as to whether the third item of the said invoice viz., cow crumbled upper finished leather-off-white would satisfy the norms prescribed for the finished goods under Public Notice No. 3/ETC(PN) 1992/97 dated 27.05.1992. Samples were drawn and sent for testing at Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai (CLRI). The value of this item alone works to be Rs.4,10,597/-(FOB) for the declared quantify of 4857.50 Sq. ft. 2.1 The consignment was permitted to be exported based on the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty amount. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. counsel Shri Sundaranathan T. appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the exported goods had protective coating and the goods have been received by the foreign importer and there was no complaint of any sort from them. There was no difficulty in getting the remittance from the foreign buyer and the documents in regard to the amount received from the buyer was also furnished before the authorities. The Ld. counsel submitted that it is contended by the Department that the CLRI report stated that the goods does not satisfy the norms and conditions laid down in the Public Notice in the absence of protective coat. However, the said re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The goods have been ordered for confiscation, payment of redemption fine and penalty along with duty for the reason that the goods did not conform to the criteria of finished leather as per the Public Notice dated 27.05.1992. It is the case of the Department that the samples were drawn and sent for testing before CLRI. Though it is stated that the report dated 24.09.2009 issued by CLRI confirmed that the goods are un-finished leather as there was no protective coating, we do not find any details of the report as part of the records. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the copy of the report was not furnished to the appellant. The Bench directed the Department to furnish the copy of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
