Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported material was classifiable as tanned or dressed fur skins under Heading No. 43.02, or as raw hides and skins under Heading No. 41.02 so as to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 25/95-Cus. dated 16-3-1995, and whether the demand of duty and penalty could be sustained.
Analysis: The goods were described in the bills of entry and invoices as raw skin of lamb with hair, and provisional clearance had been granted on that basis. The exemption notification covered raw hides and skins, including sheep skins in wool, whereas the Revenue's case depended on the goods being tanned or dressed fur skins. The report relied on by the Revenue was found to be inconclusive because it did not clearly establish what process had been applied or how the sample was tested. The subsequent clarification from the laboratory also weakened the reliability of the report, and the material on record did not establish that the imported goods had undergone tanning or dressing.
Conclusion: The goods were not proved to be tanned or dressed fur skins, and the classification adopted by the Revenue was not sustainable. The import was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, and the duty demand and penalty were set aside.