TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein who are manufacturers and exporters of ready made garments, carpets, etc., imported 220 rolls of fabrics declared as viscose coated fabrics and filed a Bill of Entry for warehousing on 21-3-1991, and for the purpose of manifesting on 2-5-1991 and on the same date, the Bill of Entry had been presented, requesting storage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The appellants raised a dispute about drawing of the sample in the presence of their representative and disputed the test report. The goods were got tested by them by M/s.Texan Labs North, New Delhi which showed the fibre content of the same as "Rayon 49.1%, polyester 44.4% and acrylic 6.5%. The remnant sample was sent to the CRCL, New Delhi for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt particularly when there was a difference between the first test report dated 19-12-1991 (P 56-57) and the second test report of 14-5-1993 (P 87-88) and neither report was categoric as to whether the fabric could be considered as either viscose fabrics or rayon fabrics. He further submits that the record of personal hearing (page 89-89a) does not bear out the finding in the adjudication order th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate the presence of viscose while the report of May 1993 shows viscose content as 16%. The test report obtained by the appellants from Texan Labs North on 18-8-1982 (page 86 of the paper book) shows the presence of rayon and polyester but not viscose. It is in such a situation, that the cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner or Chief Chemist becomes all the more important. The record of pers....