2015 (11) TMI 887

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4A. The Customs on doubting the grade of Mulberry Raw Silk declared by the appellant subjected the goods for first check examination. Samples were drawn and the same were forwarded to the Central Silk Technological Research Institute (CSTRI), Bangalore for testing the samples of Raw Silk. Pending its report, provisional release of the goods was allowed on execution of Bank Guarantee of 50% of ADD. On receipt of the test report [TR No.TTL-STG-94 dt.11.8.2003], it was certified that the sample is of 2A grade. As per Notification 106/03-Cus. dt. 10.7.2003, the import of Mulberry Raw Silk of Grade 2A or below 2A attracts NIL rate of duty. The importer vide their letter dt.21.10.2003 requested to adjudicate the case and requested for waiver of S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t given. Both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have not considered their plea that once the certificate of inspection declared the Grade as 4A, the same should be accepted. There is no mens rea with intention to evade payment as the goods were declared as per the invoice and packing list the goods are not liable for confiscation and not liable for penalty. He relied on the following citations :- (1) Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs CC Visakhapatnam- 2004 (168) ELT 49 (Tri.-Bang.) (2) Asha Enterprises Vs CC (Seaport) Chennai -2008 (230) ELT 461 (Tri.-Chennai) (3) Silkone International Vs CC Chennai-2007 (208) ELT 271(Tri.- Bang.) (4) Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs CC Bangalore - 2015 (323) ELT 189 (Tri.-Bang.) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re of the test report and only pleaded for leniency. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appellants contention that that they had not been provided with test report. Further appellants contention that quarantine certificate issued by Peoples of Republic of China should be accepted is not tenable as it is confirmed by the test report that the goods imported were found to be Grade-2A. Therefore the copy of bonafide of inspection certificate and quarantine certificate relied by the appellant is not valid. The adjudicating authority has rightly held that Anti dumping duty is chargeable and the appellants have misdeclared the goods as Grade 4A instead of 2A. The citations relied by the appellant are not applicable to the issue. Therefor....