Page 143 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] HI FASN LEATHER PRODUCTS CO. v. JT. C.C. (AIRPORT & CARGO), CHENNAI 533

description shown in that Report viz., “Cow Lining Leather” not the same as
the export of goods in question viz., ‘Finished Leather’ - Report relied upon by
Revenue, although gives the description of sample as “Cow Softy Upper
Leather (Crunch)”, a mere difference of description of the goods in these two
Reports given by CLRI itself, as obtained by the Revenue and assessee, not
fatal and can be relied upon - Sample goods sent by assessee for testing obvi-
ously not from the lot of the goods exported or goods confiscated by Revenue,
report obtained by Revenue Authorities from the sample taken from the con-
fiscated export goods, more reliable rather than the report produced by
assessee - Rejection of the prayer for retesting of samples after a long period of
nine years by Tribunal cannot be faulted - Imposition of redemption fine and
penalty in question, justified - Sections 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962. [pa-
ras 6, 7, 8]
Appeals dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.B.R. Menon, Advocate for the Appellant.
M/s. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment per : Vineet Kothari, J. (Common)]. - The assessee has filed
these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the order dated 26-2-2019 of the
Learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai [2019
(369) E.L.T. 1435 (Tri.-Chennai)], upholding the order passed by the lower au-
thorities and dismissing the appeals of the assessee with regard to redemption
fine and penalty imposed on the Shipping Bills for export of “Cow Crunch
Upper Finished Leather” made by the assessee under the Shipping Bills No.
3969869, 3969871 & 3963901 in question.
2. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order are
quoted below for ready reference :
“5. The samples of the leather are required to be sent to the CLRI as per
the requirement of DGFT Public Notice dated 27-5-1992. We find that this is
a detail Public Notice running into around 28 pages. The Public Notice has
given description of types of leathers, manufacturing norms, conditions and
the requirements to be tested. For example, in respect of “protective coat”,
we find as per Note 2, “the protective coat shall stand a minimum of 256 revolu-
tions to grade 4 on Gray Scale (1-5) when tested on SATRA rub fastness tester for
both dry and wet rubbing”.
5.1 The Ld. Counsel was at pains to argue that the said Public Notice dis-
cussed is outdated. Be that as it may, when that is the only method of ascer-
taining the correctness of the type of leathers declared, that too by a recog-
nized institute of national importance, have to be accepted. Interestingly,
we find that in the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellants have en-
closed a subsequent copy of Public Notice No. 21/2004, dated 1-12-2009 al-
so issued by DGFT concerning the latest leather norms. It is therefore obvi-
ous that the concerned authorities have been also seized of the matter and
have issued revised norms as per the said notification. The exports in the
present case are before the Public Notice No. 21/2004 came to be intro-
duced.
5.2 While casting aspersions in the CLRI report, Ld. Counsel has in the same
breadth placed reliance on the said test reports issued by CLRI themselves in re-
spect of samples sent by appellants. This has been done with intent to show
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  143