2011 (3) TMI 653

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng 5505.10 of the Customs Tariff. The consignment contains 264 bales. The classification declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Revenue. Revenue was of the view that the goods in question are not synthetic waste but acrylic tow classifiable under Heading 5501.30 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were examined and 22 bales were cut opened and in eight bales soiled material was found whereas in the four bale tow in running length having negligible defects were found. Six samples were taken from the soil material as well as from the other material. The appellant objected to taking of the sample and subsequently the samples were again taken on 20-11-2001 in the presence of the appellant. Out of these six samples, one sample was sent t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be applied to all the 264 bales. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that the representative samples were taken as 18 bales were found to contain soiled material and remaining bales were of the some kind of other material therefore the represented samples were sent to the chemical examiner and the report of Textile Committee in respect of two samples is in favour of Revenue and report of one sample shows that it is a tow waste. In these circumstances, the contention is that the result of two samples which show that goods were Acrylic tow and not tow waste. Hence, the impugned order is rightly passed demanding duty by reclassifying the goods in question. 8. We find that in the present....