9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marized as under : The fabrics imported were tested in the Customs Laboratory in respect of Bills of Entry No.2363089 and 2400664. The Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Tuticorin vide his report dt. 30.11.2010 has reported the percentage of woven fabric in the fabric in question as 65.6%; that one layer is made of coloured woven fabric composed of 59.2% textured polyester multifilament yarn, 31.9% polyester staple fibre yarn and 8.9% nylon fibre yarn and that the other layer is coloured knitted fabric made entirely of textured multifilament yarn of polyester in respect of first Bill of Entry. In respect of second Bill of Entry, the percentage of woven fabric is reported as 63.1%; one layer is made of coloured woven fabric composed of 53.9% textured polyester multifilament yarn, 31.8% polyester staple fibre yarn and 14.3% nylon fibre yarn, and the other layer is coloured knitted fabric made entirely of textured multifilament yarn of polyester. From the above test report, the Fabric in question was held to be predominantly composed by weight of synthetic/manmade woven fabrics and hence classifiable under CTH 54 or 55 but based on the test report, the goods in question were to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.Green Port Shipping Agencies (GPSA), Tuticorin re-exported the material imported into India from China to M/s.S.N. Industries Pvt. Ltd. (SNIPL), Sri Lanka; Shri Niren Ajmera negotiated with M/s.GPSA on behalf of M/s.SNIPL; statement of one Shri K.S. Murugan, Managing Partner of GPSA was recorded, summon was issued to Shri Niren Ajmera to appear before the investigating officer but the said person did not turn up on the appointed day. Further, Shri Murugan having disclosed the relationship of Shri Niren Ajmera with the above firms and that the said Niren Ajmera having not appeared in response to the summons, the issue of country of origin certificate, relationship between M/s.SNIPL and M/s.Gaunir Impex could not be further probed by the agency and hence it is averred that the Department was not in a position to issue SCN under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of seizure made on 29.08.2011 within the stipulated 6 months time-frame. Hence, at para-9 of the said notice, the importer was put on notice as to why time limit for issue of SCN in respect of goods seized should not be extended for another period of 6 months from 29.02.2012 and vide the Order-in-Original dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Section 114AA ibid. 6. M/s.GPSA, Tuticorin was put on notice as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 (a) (ii) ibid and M/s.MKS Shipping Agencies, Tuticorin under Section 112 (b) (ii) and Shri Murugan K.S., Partner of GPSA under Section 112 and 114AA ibid. 7. From the record, we do not see any Adjudication Order insofar as even the above SCNs are concerned, but however, vide another SCN dt. 11.01.2013 issued under Section 28 and 124 ibid, the Commissioner of Customs based on the very same allegations, proposed reclassification of the Fabric imported under 11 Bills of Entry mentioned in TABLE-A of the said notice as RITC 54079200, denial of exemption claimed under Notification No.26/2000 [supra], duty demand in respect of the same Bills of Entry, the appropriation of amount paid towards above demand, proposing confiscation of goods covered under the above 11 Bills of Entry under Section 111 (o) and penalty under Section 112 (a) (ii) and 114A ibid in respect of M/s.Gaunir Impex and in respect of the Director, Shri Niren Ajmera, M/s.GPSA, M/s.MKS Shipping Agencies, and Shri Murugan.K.S., proposals were repeated as in the other SCN. Interestingly, at para 43 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Calcutta Vs G.C Jain 2011 (269) ELT 307 (SC) The ratio in Nizam Sugar Factory [supra] following various other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court itself, reads as under :- "9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant." 10. Per contra, it is the case of the Revenue through the Ld. Commissioner / A.R that the above contention of the appellant is not tenable since the extended period was invoked for misdeclaring the country of origin of the exported goods with fraudulent country of origin certificate and in this regard, he has placed reliance on Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs CC & C.EX., Delhi - 2022 (382) ELT 145 (SC) wherein, according to the Ld. Commissioner, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
