TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Importance of Transparency in Testing Procedures: Appeals Dismissed Over Inadequate Evidence</h1> The appeals were dismissed due to lack of access to crucial test reports, discrepancies in test results, and absence of concrete evidence supporting the ... Benefit of N/N. 36/2003 dated 1st March 2003 (serial no. 51) - procurement of ‘polyester fabric made out of non-texturised polyester yarn’, classifiable under heading no. 5407 6190 - HELD THAT:- The goods had originally been cleared on the basis of the report of the Textile Committee without any objection. Though the original authority had relied upon a second report from the Textile Committee, as well as from the Joint Director of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), we find no evidence of these reports in the records. Moreover, it would appear that the reviewing authorities did not also have access to these reports to come to a conclusion that the first appellate authority had erred in discarding these. It is but natural that justice requires the importer to be placed on notice with specifics of remnant samples that needed re-testing, else, the truthfulness of that sampling remains questionable and the test thereon tainted. In view of the lack of any record to sustain the assertions in the appeal and the variance between the reports of the Textile Committee itself, Appeal is dismissed. Issues:Appeal against order-in-appeal allowing appeals of importer regarding procurement of polyester fabric made out of non-texturised polyester yarn; Classification under heading no. 5407 6190; Entitled to notification no. 36/2003 dated 1st March 2003; Dispute over test results; Reliability of test reports; Variance between test reports; Compliance with directions of first appellate authority; Lack of access to test reports by reviewing authorities.Analysis:The appeals were filed against the order-in-appeal allowing the appeals of the importer in the matter of procurement of polyester fabric made out of non-texturised polyester yarn, classifiable under heading no. 5407 6190 and entitled to notification no. 36/2003 dated 1st March 2003. The dispute revolved around the test results conducted after the import of goods, which revealed mis-declaration issues. The original authority held that the reports confirmed the presence of texturized yarn beyond stipulated limits, disentitling the importer from the benefit of the notification. However, the first appellate authority raised doubts on the reliability of the test results, especially due to non-availability of the reports to the importer and discrepancies in the test results. The first appellate authority ultimately upheld the original declaration in the bill of entry.The impugned order disposed of appeals against similar orders related to bill of entry numbers 379011/06.08.2003 and 381686/18.08.2003, leading to the present appeal. The contention was made that the second test report should be accepted as the first test did not examine essential aspects related to texturizing. It was argued that the variance between the reports of the Textile Committee and the Central Revenue Control Laboratory was not significant, both indicating non-conformity with qualities of fabric made from non-texturised yarn. Reference to the Textile Committee was mandated by a specific circular.The tribunal found that the goods were initially cleared based on the report of the Textile Committee without objections. However, there was no evidence of the second reports from the Textile Committee and the Central Revenue Control Laboratory in the records. The reviewing authorities did not have access to these reports either, leading to a lack of evidence to support the assertions made in the appeal. Due to the variance between the reports of the Textile Committee and the lack of access to crucial test reports, the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit.In conclusion, the lack of access to essential test reports, discrepancies in the test results, and the absence of concrete evidence to support the assertions made in the appeal led to the dismissal of the appeals. The importance of transparency in testing procedures and the need for proper documentation to support claims were highlighted in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
