Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The case of the Revenue is based on 20 Relied Upon Documents listed in Annexure -A to the SCN. This includes 8 statements of various persons recorded under section 108 of the Act, one panchnama, two letters from the importer and Shri Jain, letters from various exporters who had exported the leather, obtained the DFIA licences and sold them to the appellant importer and a letter dated 5.11.2014 from the Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai.

15. In the letter of CLRI signed by Chief Scientist and Head of Tannery Division, Dr. C. Muralidharan, written to the Senior 13 C/50208 OF 2020 and another Intelligence Officer, DRI in response to his enquiry is as follows:

16. In the SCN, the Additional Director DRI had:

i) relied on the above expert opinion of the CLRI to assert that Epoxy resin is not an impregnating resin;

ii) relied on statements of various exporters recorded under section 108 to conclude that they had not used epoxy resin in manufacture of the exported leather;

iii) relied on the fact that epoxy resin was not mentioned in the DFIA licences and only „impregnating resin‟ was mentioned in them;

In view of DYCC above test report, if approved, we may assess the BE. Submitted please.

Signed by the Superintendent and the Deputy Commissioner.

24. What is clear from the above is that in at least one case, Epoxy Resin imported by an importer was tested and certified by CRCL that it was an impregnation resin and the goods were cleared by the Customs under DFIA as „impregnation resin‟.

25. It must be pointed out that the samples of the goods imported by the appellant in this case were not drawn and sent for testing to either the CLRI or by the CRCL. Had the DRI, while investigating, sent samples to some expert (CLRI or CRCL), we could have had a definite expert opinion as to whether the imported goods was impregnating resin or otherwise.

18 C/50208 OF 2020 and another

26. It is not within our field of expertise to decide if the CLRI‟s opinion was correct or that of CRCL. We, therefore, do not find sufficient evidence to say with certainty that the epoxy resin imported by the appellant importer was not impregnating resin or not and hence whether it was covered by DFIA or not. Samples were not sent for testing either to CLRI nor CRCL during investigation.

27. In the absence of any evidence, we must hold that the allegation in the SCN and the finding in the order of the Joint Commissioner upheld in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) that the Epoxy Resin imported by the appellant was not impregnating resin cannot be sustained.