9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs. As the common issue is involved, both the appeals are being taken up together. 2. In Appeal No. C/549/02-D, the facts are that the appellants made import of consignment of 60 packages of 100 per cent polyester fabric of non-texturised filament (in stock lot) and 100 per cent polyester warp knit fabric (in stock lot). Appellants filed a Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en into possession by the Customs authorities. Thereafter, the Customs authorities had taken 13 samples from 60 packages and as per the Customs authorities, the samples were not in accordance with declaration made in the Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority confiscated 12 unmarked packages. The adjudicating authority, on the basis of test report, also classified the imported goods under diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 12 unmarked packages were not the same, regarding which the Bill of Entry was filed, the test report, which also shows that the samples from 12 unmarked packages, cannot be made the basis for misdeclaration on the part of the appellants. Appellants also contended that they asked for re-test of the samples, but their request to re-test was declined on the ground that there was no valid reason f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 samples, six were found as per declaration filed by the appellants. In these circumstances, the charge of misdeclaration on the part of the appellants is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order, except the confiscation of 12 packages, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. In Appeal No. C/408/2002-D, appellants made import of a consignment of 100 per cent polyester fabric of non-te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal, the allegation is that the appellants misdeclared the goods. The basis of the allegation is the subsequent import of the similar goods. From the consignment, in question in this appeal, no sample was taken. The Customs authorities relied upon the statement of the proprietor of the appellant-company. There is no other evidence that the appellants had misdeclared the goods in this consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
