TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Appeal No. 52255 of 2019 and others. The grounds for filing this application are as follows:- "(A) Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in assuming that subjective opinion of the Textile Committee was based on destroyed samples. In this regard, following facts are enumerated:- (i) During investigation 02 sets of representative samples were drawn from the goods available at godown premises of importers (RUD-13, RUD-14 & RUD-15 of SCN). (ii) Vide letter F.No. DRI/HQ-CI/50D/ENQ-22 (INT-10)/2016 dated 06.07.2016 (RUD-19 of SCN), 01 set of samples from the said 02 sets of representative samples were sent to Textile Committee, New Delhi for testing them with respect to their constituent material, presence of prohibited dyes and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-17 dated 06.10.2016 (RUD-24 of SCN) for Lab Sample No. CUSCCO-609 was in respect of second set of representative samples wherein tests namely "HS classification of Garment" was determined and in the remarks column it was mentioned that this parameter subcontracted to EQ&QA, Naraina (New Delhi). D. It is clear from above facts that for determining "HS classification of Garment", second set of samples was used and not the first sample which had undergone destructive testing. Similar process was followed by Textile Committee in respect of Lab sample No. CUSCCO-596 (Girls Pyjama) wherein parameters viz. 1. identification of fibre, 2. %composition, 3. Unit Weight of Garment and 4. Weight of Elastic were determined vide report No. 677/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the standard practice. Under the letter dated 06.07.2016 DRI sent one set of samples to the Textile Committee for testing them for the constituent material, nature of fabric(woven knitted fabric), presence of prohibited tiles and also for the onion on the HS classification of the goods. (iii) The Textile Committee by its report No. 668 dated 30.08.2016 related to Samples No. CUSCCO/596, identified the fibre content to be polyester or polyurethane' and the fabrics to be knitted but regarding HS classification it is stated that " it was not possible to ascertain the correct measurement of the garment as during the testing procedure the samples got de-shaped and destructed. Hence cannot assess the HS classification. Further, under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n paragraph 32 of the Final Order also need to be re-cast. (x) The observations in paragraph 38 of the Final Order referring to the opinion of the EP&QA as "subjective" also needs to be re-considered. (xi) The paragraph 28.8 of the Order in Original when read with paragraph 28.3 of OIO makes it clear that the Adjudicating Authority has formed his own opinion based on various pieces of evidence, committee's opinion and various other materials including the HSN explanatory notes raised before him. (xii) In view of the above, the prayer and the application may be accepted and the goods may be classified accordingly. Submissions of the appellant 4. Learned counsel for the appellant supported the final order and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l test report dated 21.09.2016 which also refers to the same sample received from DRI under the same covering letter but states that it was tested from 08.07.2016 to 21.09.2016 and gives opinion on HS code. In paragraph 28 of the Final Order, we expressed surprise as to how the same sample which was destroyed could be tested for a little longer and the HS code determined. We had specifically recorded that the additional test report does not say that any extra sample was received which the textile committee had examined and given the additional report. It refers to the same sample which has been destroyed. Similar is the case with the other sample No. 668 dated 30.08.2016 which was tested by the Textile Committee from 08.07.2016 to 30.08.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepted as it is contrary to what is recorded in the test report and the additional test report. The additional test report clearly states that the sample was received on 08.07.2016 and not on or after 01.09.2016 when, according to the learned special counsel, the second set of samples were sent. It cannot be said that the reports which were given by the Textile Committee are based on a second set of samples. An illustration will make this position clear beyond any shadow of doubt. 10. A diagnostic laboratory test, for instance, receives various samples of blood. If two or more samples are drawn from a patient at various points of time-say, fasting, and PP or before medication or after medication, as to which sample does any report per....