AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 340 wordsThe goods in question imported by bill 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 62143000 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.
Revenue supports the adjudication on the ground that even manmade fibre falls under synthetic fibre, Appellant cannot get advantage of tariff entry
6214.
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.
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.
For the aforesaid reason, all appeals are allowed.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court)