TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [impugned order] by Sarvatra International [the importer] and the Revenue. 2. The importer imported fabrics described as 100% polyester knitted fabric in two Bills of Entry and classified them under Customs Tariff Item [CTI] 6005 90 00 attracting customs duty @ 10% ad-valorem. Gathering intelligence, the officers of Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch [SIIB] of the Commissionerate examined the goods and sent samples to the Textile Committee for testing. The test report categorically showed that they were polyester cut pile fabrics. Statement of the proprietor of the importer was recorded and he was shown the test report which he acknowledged. On his request, the goods were provisionally released on execution of a bond with a b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly) under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I refrain from imposing any penalty under section 112 of the Act for the reasons discussed above". 5. Revenue's appeal is on the limited ground that while the Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty under section 28(4) in respect of both Bills of Entry, he imposed mandatory penalty of only Rs. 47,89,393/- under section 114A of the Act which pertains to the Bill of Entry dated 21.02.2009 and did not impose penalty equivalent to the differential duty of Rs. 15,59,363/- pertaining to the Bill of Entry dated 24.03.2009. 6. The importer's appeal assails the entire order confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalties. Submissions on behalf of the importer 7. Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2016 (342) E.L.T. 62 (Del.)] (e) Odyssey Impex versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai [2014 (312) E.L.T. 47 (Mad.)] (f) Shri Vyom Dipesh Raichanna versus Union of India & Ors. passed in Writ Petition No. 10708/2025 passed by High Court of Bombay on 10.09.2025 (iii) A similar issue also arose before the High Court of Madras in the case of Odyssey Impex (supra) in respect to the classification of the fabric and the High Court held that re-testing is permissible in terms of clause 19 of Customs Apprising Manual. (iv) The impugned order records an incorrect finding that the appellant had not filed its reply to the show cause notice. The appellant had filed their reply vide letter dated 15.03.2010 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant relies on :- (a) Padmini Products versus Collector of Central Excise [1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.)] (b) International Merchandising Company, LLC versus Commissioner of Service tax, New Delhi [(2022) I Centax 31 (S.C.)] (c) Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmedabad - III (d) Jay Kay Exports versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Calcutta [2003 (161) E.L.T. 443 (Tri. - Cal.)] (e) Shree Ganesh International versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur [2004 (174) E.L.T. 171 (Tri. - Del.)] (f) Kirti Sales Corpn. Versus Commr. of Cus., Faridabad [2008 (232) E.L.T. 151 (Tri. - Del.)] No other submissions were made by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c i.e. polyester knitted printed fabric is as under : First of all the fabric is knitted on the circular knitting machine and the loops are formed during the process of knitting on the knitting machine thereafter the looped fabric is put on another smooth/napped finish of the fabric. Thereafter the looped cut fabric is printed on printing machine". INSPECTION REPORT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Applicant : HONGWEI CLOTH (CHANG SHU) CO. LTD. Consignee : Sarvatra International Description of Goods : 100% Polyester Fabric Quantity of sample : One piece of 1 m x full width Resource of sample : Sent by the applicant Inspection items : Manufacture Process INSPECTION RESULTS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... get the samples tested in the manner in which he wants to get it tested. It is for the expert to decide how the sample should be tested. What is relevant, based on the test report, is whether the imported goods were cut pile fabrics or otherwise. There can be no dispute that the goods were cut pile fabrics because even the reports submitted by the importer shows that they had a pile. Under these circumstances, we find that there is no need for the sample to be re-tested because there is no contrary report. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner re-classifying the goods as polyester cut pile fabric and confirming demand of duty accordingly in respect of both the Bills of Entry. 1....