2014(08)LCX0212

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [COURT NO. II]

S/Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Manmohan Singh, Member (T)

PRASS AGGRAWAL HOSIERY

Versus

COMMR. OF CUS., ICD, TKD, NEW DELHI

Final Order Nos. A/53206-53208/2014-CU(DB), dated 7-8-2014 in Appeal Nos. C/3036, 3063 & 3179/2012

Advocated By -

Shri Prhjadarsh Manish, Ms. Anjali and Ms. Shikha
Sapra, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Ms. Ranjana, Jha, }CDR,for the Respondent.

[Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. -

The goods in question imported by Bills of Entry No. 5141841, dated 9-11-2011 was declared as Polyester Ladies Stole under Heading 61171090. Subsequently such classification was changed to Heading 62143000. Ld. Authority did not agree with the classification on the ground that the goods fall under CTH 62149060. The objection was that the goods were manmade fibre which also takes within its fold the synthetic fibre. Appellant, on the other hand, contends that the goods were of the nature falling under Heading 6214 which reads as under :-


6214

Shawls, scarves, mufflers, mantillas, veils and the like


6214 30 00

of synthetic fibres


The goods when further classified, more particularly falling under Heading 62143000, suggests that the goods were made of synthetic fibre without manmade fibre. In the absence of enquiry or any cogent evidence, the goods imported cannot be presumed to be made out of manmade fibre and that cannot be classified under the CTH 62149060.


2. Revenue supports the adjudication on the ground that even manmade fibre falls under synthetic fibre, appellant cannot get advantage of Tariff Entry 6214.


3. In view of aforesaid controversy, record and tariff entry was examined. It may be stated that the goods in question were no doubt made of synthetic fibre. But there is no evidence to show whether the goods were made out of manmade fibre to bring the same under 62149060. There may be possibility that synthetic fibre may be falling under heading manmade fibre but to establish the same an enquiry should have been done by Revenue. That has not been done. Burden of proof not being discharged by the Revenue. It is difficult to agree with the contention of Revenue that the goods fall under Heading 62149060.


4. We make it clear that once misdeclaration of the description of goods is not established, there is no scope to make allegation of misdeclaration of value against the appellant.


5. For the aforesaid reason, all appeals are allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

Equivalent 2015 (320) ELT 0324 (Tri. - Del.)