AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15119090 and claiming the benefit of Customs Notification No.21/2002 [Sl.No.30(A)]. In order to verify the percentage of Free Fatty Acid (FFA) and description of goods, the into Bond Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed and samples of imported goods were drawn which were sent to Custom House Laboratory, Chennai. The imported goods were meant to be bonded in bonded warehouse. As per the report, the percentage of FFA as per report were as under : Sample A : 18.08 % Sample B : 17.80 % Sample C : 18.00 % Thus all the test reports categorically stated that the samples contained less than 20% of FFA and did not conform to the description of Crude Palm Stearin having FFA of 20% or more which were exempted under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Counsel Shri H.P. Kamade accompanied by Ms.Swetha Giridhar, Advocate submitted that purchase orders were placed by the supplier only for supply of non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin. Based on the import documents supported by two test reports i.e. Load Port test as well as Discharge Port test, appellant had filed in-Bond Bills of Entry all dt. 2.7.2009 and the goods were warehoused in the Customs Warehouse; that the test report had reported that the goods were Non-Edible Crude Palm Stearin; till this stage, there was no allegation of misdeclaration of the description of the subject goods. The allegation then was only that the goods do not conform to the declared percentage of FFA so as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, the goods were reported to be Palm Stearin by the Customs Laboratory. At that stage, the only adverse report was that the FFA content was less than 20% and therefore goods did not conform to the requirement of FFA to be eligible for exemption under Sl.No.30 (A) of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The appellants had requested for further test and later with much delay of more than 2 years the reports were received from CRCL stating that the goods were Palm Oil and not Palm Stearin. All the documents such as purchase order etc. show that the goods for which the they had placed order was only Palm Stearin. On coming to know that the goods did not conform to the description in the documents, the appellant has requested for re-export of the....