IMFA Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
Facts- The appellants had imported ‘Polyester fabrics’ classifying it under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 5407 6190. On the basis of the test reports received from the Textile Committee reporting that the imported goods are fabrics made of Non-texturized Polyester Yarn, the goods were assessed by the department under CTI 5407 6190 charging the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at the rate of 25% ad valorem in terms of Serial No.51 of Notification No.36/2003-Customs and applicable Counter Vailing Duty (CVD).
Thereafter, DRI had taken up the remnant samples of the imported goods in the above case, for re-testing of the same by Central Revenue Control Laboratory of the New Custom House, Mumbai (CRCL). On the basis of CRCL test reports indicating that the imported fabrics were of dyed woven fabrics containing 85% or more by weight of Synthetic Filament Yarn, the DRI had come to a conclusion that the imported goods should have been correctly classified under CTI 5407 7200 and higher amount of customs duty at Rs.24 per square metre should have been paid in terms of Serial No.93 of Notification No.27/2003-Customs, resulting short payment of duty to the extent of Rs.19,48,359/- in respect of the above imports by the appellants.
