9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 6907.90 of the CTA and sought clearance without licence under Para 5.1 of the EXIM Policy, 1997-2002. The bill of entry was assessed as per declaration made by them; and after payment of duty, so assessed, the bill of entry was presented in the import shed for physical examination where the goods were examined in the presence of the appellant's representative. On examination, it appeared that the goods were glazed tiles. Such tiles were classifiable under Heading 6908.90 of the tariff and being restricted for importation as per classification, could not be imported without proper licence. The appellants requested for the provisional release of the goods against P.D. test bond pending f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied to the appellants by the manufacturer and the distinction between unglazed and glazed tiles, as pointed out by them in their reply to the show cause notice as well as in the letter dated 30-1-2001. The learned Counsel has also sought for retest of the goods from the Central Glass and Research Institute, Calcutta. But we have gone through the record and in our view, the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the representative samples of the goods were drawn and sealed in the presence of the appellants. The samples were sent to CRCL for test. It was opined that samples had the characteristics of glazed tiles, again on the request of the appellants, as is evident from the order itself, the second report from CRCL on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der : - "There are clear distinctions between the porcelain unglazed tiles and glazed tiles from the point of view of their nature and compositions. While porcelain unglazed tiles are almost completely vitrified and would absorb no water (impermeable), glazed tiles have a porous body permeable to water". 6.Thus, from both the reports of the CRCL read with distinction between unglazed and glazed, as even pointed out by the appellants themselves in their above referred correspondence with the customs authorities and the manufacturing process furnished by them, it is quite evident that the imported goods were not unglazed but glazed tiles which were classifiable only under Tariff Heading 6908.90. Therefore, the licence for the import of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mple of the goods be got conducted from the Central Glass Ceramic Research Institute, Calcutta and such a test could be ordered by the Tribunal at this stage also, cannot be accepted. There exists no reason to doubt the correctness of two reports given by the CRCL. According to both the reports, the goods satisfied the characteristics of glazed tiles. Moreover, no sample of the goods is available for test as per the report furnished by the D.R. to the Bench. The goods had already been got released and utilized by the appellants. The Counsel has no doubt produced the copy of the order of the Apex Court passed in Sukeshan Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay, Civil Appeal No. 7972/95, [2001 (134) E.L.T. 604 (S.C.)] wherein the Apex Court appoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
