2001 (6) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artner of the firm. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants presented shipping bill dated 19-8-89 for 1800 bags declared to contain 90,000 kgs Zinc Oxide. The goods were examined by the Examiner, the officer recorded the examination report at the back of the shipping bill reading as "Inspected a lot of 1800 bags. Selected, opened 10% at random for examination and found to contain Zinc Oxide as per invoice, P/L and GR attached. Samples drawn from the bag." This examination report was also signed by the Superintendent. The sample was taken and sent for laboratory test to Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The chemical test of the sample confirmed that sample was of Zinc Oxide. The goods were allowed to be shipped to Hong....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved; that the chemical report in respect of samples drawn in India showed that the goods were Zinc Oxide; that this report supported the description of the goods in the shipping bill; that the sample reportedly drawn by the Hongkong Customs did not mention the numbers of the container; that the consignment was released to the Hongkong importer; that the samples were drawn at the back of noticee at Hongkong; that the samples were not properly drawn and made some other submissions. After considering the submissions and the facts on records, the Commissioner held as indicated above. 4. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate appears for the apellants whereas Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR appears for the respondent Commissioner. 5. The main contention ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... procedure followed. We note that only point for determination before us in view of the contention of both sides is whether Hongkong report should be accepted as authenticate report or the Delhi Customs report should be accepted as correct. We note that in the instant case, the goods were inspected by the Examining Officer and he formed an opinion that the contents of the bags presented for export was Zinc Oxide. The department's contention was that visual examination was not sufficient to find out the chemical nature of the goods. We find that the sample was taken from a bag and the sample was found to contain Zinc Oxide as reported by CRCL. On the other hand, we find that no doubt samples were drawn by Hongkong Customs which might be more....