9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Act] along with anti-dumping duty. FACTS: 2. Based on a specific intelligence regarding evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty by mis-declaration, the consignments imported by the Appellant vide Bills of Entry [BOE] No. 2935486 dated 15.10.2015 were examined by SIIB, TKD Import. The goods were declared as "P.S. Printing Plates (Photosensitive Printing Plate)" under CTH 84425010 imported from China. During examination on 03.11.2015, the goods were found to be 75000 pieces of Aluminum Printing Plates having one side blue in colour and other side natural aluminum colour. Representative samples were drawn on the spot for further investigations and sealed with Customs Seal. The impugned goods were assessed provisionall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20.06.2017 was issued to the appellant, however he failed to submit any reply thereto. The personal hearings fixed by the adjudicating authority on 26.12.2017, 18.01.2018 and 15.02.2018 were not attended by the appellant. Subsequently, vide letter dated 04.04.2018 requested that the matter may be fixed in the third week of April, 2018. Accordingly, personal hearing was fixed on 07.06.2018, 20.08.2018 and on 25.03.2019, however, the appellant failed to appear nor sent any request for any accommodation. The adjudicating authority relying on the allegations raised by the proprietor of the appellant in his statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, that the plates were not tested by conventional method and were tested after the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they were not having proper mechanism to conduct the test. The tests have not been conducted through conventional method of testing and therefore, the test report is not reliable. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sun N Sand Exim (I) Pvt Ltd Final Order No.58744/2024 in Customs Appeal No. 51231/2022 (dated. 30.09.2024), and also on the decision by the Ahemadabad Bench in Acme Micronised Minerals vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra (2024) 17 CENTAX 1 (Tri.-Ahmd) in support of her submissions. She therefore, prayed that the goods were not liable for confiscation and penalty and hence the present appeal may be allowed. 8. Shri Rakesh Kumar, the learned authorized representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is to the test report relying on the findings of this Tribunal in the later decision in Sun N Sand, where test report was held to be not reliable as the lab was lacking proper infrastructure for CTCP machine testing and, therefore, outsourced it for testing. The facts of the present case are not identical to the case of Sun N Sand in so far as the authenticity of the test report is concerned. Though in both the cases, the Government labs had refused to conduct the test due to non-availability of the infrastructure and the testing was forwarded to the private lab, i.e., M/s. Don Bosco, however, the present case is distinguishable as the testing had not been outsourced by M/s. Don Bosco and it has also not been proved by the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said document. The objection taken is contrary to the record and hence rejected. 12. The learned counsel also submitted that the Don Bosco Institute did not have the facility of testing and placed reliance on the decision in Acme Micronised Minerals, supra where it has been held that when the laboratories do not have testing facilities, its test report cannot be relied upon and the goods passed on the basis of such test report is unsustainable. On perusal of the said decision, we find that in the facts of that case, the Tribunal has relied on the earlier decision in Gaurav Laboratories Industries vs. Commissioner 2024 (387) ELT 211(Tri.-Ahmedabad) which had considered the various Circulars issued by the CBEC. It was found that the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... metime before the said date, the samples drawn from the consignment on 03.11.2015 were initially forwarded to the Government lab on 19.11.2015 but due to the unforeseen circumstances, the samples were finally sent on 14.12.2017 and soon, thereafter, the test report was made on 30.03.2017. According to the appellant, the samples sent on 20.02.2017 was late by one year three months and seventeen days, however, it is not clear from what date the said period has been calculated as the date of manufacturing has not been mentioned. Since only the date of invoice as 18.04.2015 is available, the delay, if any, is not really very material as it would not change the nature and characteristics of the goods. The declared goods, as P.S. Plates, would re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
