2001 (11) TMI 822

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Ananya Ray, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. -  Feeling aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 26-3-2001 of Commissioner of Customs, the appellants have come up in appeal. 2. The issue relates to the classification of the imported goods which the appellants had described in the bill of entry as acrylic waste. According to the appellants, being ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not only disallowed the retest of the sample but also the request of the appellants for cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner whose report dated 25-2-99 has been relied upon by him for confirming the duty demand on the appellants. 4. On the other hand, learned SDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that the request for cross-examination of the Che....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the learned Commissioner. The appellants were within their right to make such a request in order to substantiate their plea that goods imported by them were only acrylic waste classifiable under sub-heading 5505.10 and not under sub-heading 5506.30 as alleged by the customs authorities. Therefore, the Commissioner should have considered and acceded if not both, but any one out of these two r....