RAJA IMPORTS AND EXPORTS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, Shri B.B. Gujral, ld. Advocate refers his miscellaneous application and submits that the applicants filed a request for hearing their case at Delhi. He submits that the request for retaining of hearing their case was based on the location of the appellants who according to them were located at Ludhiana for the last 20 years. After hearing his submission and noting that the applicants are located permanently at Ludhiana. Permission was accorded and the appeal was heard.

(2.) LD . Counsel submits that the Addl. Collector in the impugned order held that as per the evidence discussed above, since the export goods have not been manufactured out of 100% acrylic fibre the benefit of exemption Notification No. 116/88 is not applicable to the imported goods and therefore the appellants are required to pay import duty of Rs. 7,29,023.05. The Collector therefore confirmed this demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants.

(3.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellants submitted two shipping bills covering the export of acrylic knitted caps sorted sizes and assorted colours. The appellants declared these goods to be 100% acrylic fibre. The shipping bills were examined and 10% goods were examined. On examination, the goods were reported to have been manufactured out of old and used synthetics rags and some were made from woollen rags. In view of this, 100% examination of the goods was resorted to. The representative samples were drawn and sent to the Dy. Chief Chemist. The Dy. Chief Chemist in his report dated 20 -12 -88 reported that on visual examination of each sample it seems the old and used knitted garments have been cut into triangular shaped pieces and stitched together to form a cap. Most of the caps are made from knitted fabric pieces composed of all acrylic spun yarn and some are composed of blended spun yarn of acrylic and wool fibre. The SASMIRA confirmed that the result shows great variations and this is possible only in the case of use of old fibres. A SCN was issued to the assessee asking them to explain as to why the goods should not be confiscated and why a penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that the export obligation period was already extended up to 11 -9 -88 and later extended to 30 -6 -89 and therefore requested to withdraw the III SCN. Regarding the second SCN, the appellants submitted that the exported goods were examined by the Textile Committee before their dispatch from Ludhiana; that the Textile Committee states that the composition of fibre used in the manufacture of exported goods is 100% Polyacrylonitrile; that the test report of SASMIRA dated 10 -1 -89 gives composition as 100% Acrylic; that the goods were 100% acrylic fibre; that the Dy. Chief Chemist's report was based on visual examination and, therefore cannot be relied upon; that the request for cross -examination of the Asst. Collector, Deputy Chief Chemist, Textile Committee and Examiners of SASMIRA and Shri Jacob Cherian on whose evidence, the department relied upon, was not accepted. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Collector held as indicated above.