TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported against bill of entry no. 3843791/02.11.2017 by re-classification against description corresponding to tariff item 8452 3090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well rejection of declared value by recourse to rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2017 with attendant consequence of confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and option to redeem solely for re-export besides imposing penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that this issue is before us for the second time as, on the earlier occasion, the order of the first appellate authority had been set aside by order [ final order no. A/85521/2019 dated 19th March 2019 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D) dated 22nd June 2017. The appellant had claimed coverage against tariff item 8448 5190 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The original authority relied upon test report of National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), resorted to on the acknowledged inconclusiveness of the report of Manmade Textile Research Association (MMTRA), and the finding thereof '14.2. I find the above mentioned report given by NIFT, which is an institution under Ministry of Textile, Government of India as conclusive. Being a Government of India institution, the authenticity of report is beyond doubt. This is a very categorical report which confirms that the said goods are sewing machines needles by basic design. Only with modification in machine s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been the only recourse to charge differential duty. 4. In addition, the request for cross-examination of the author of the test report was rejected thus '15. I find that the Test Report of NIFT was communicated to the importer vide letter F no S/26-Misc-3947/2019r20 Gr V dated 08/04/2020 and asked him for suitable dated for personal hearing. Vide email dated 21/04/2020, the authorized representative of the importer, Shri Jhamman Singh has asked for cross examination of Professor Dr Pawan Godiawala, the author of NIFT test report in this case. He also requested that the personal hearing with the prior confirmation from Dr Pawam Godiawala for cross examination after third week of May 2020 citing COVID-19 lockdown. In this regard, I find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....text of the tariff lines in dispute. Try as we did, we are yet to identify 'embroidery needles' therein with any certainty and it would appear that the framework of the dispute was designed solely around the description of the impugned goods in the bill of entry. For re-classification to have validity, the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 should have been resorted to. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC)] has set out of the rules of engagement thus 'It is not in dispute before us as it cannot be, that onus of establishing that the said rings fell within Item No. 22-F lay upon the Revenue. The Revenue led n....