9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal, after hearing the parties on the stay application. 2. Three consignments of polypropylene were imported by the appellant, invoiced at US $560 per MT CIF. The goods were released after being provisionally assessed, at the value declared apparently pending chemical test. Subsequently notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot accept these submissions. He has in his order, impugned in this appeal, said that the value of the goods should be enhanced to US $ 1030 per MT, held goods liable to confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111, but having noted that they were not available physically, ordered recovery of redemption fine by enforcing the condition of the bond. He has also imposed penalty on the appellant. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 111, is however in view of the case, a satisfactory answer. In this invoking clause (m) of Section 111 by the Commissioner has in fact ordered confiscation under this clause, on the ground that the value declared was lower than the correct value. 5. It cannot be disputed that before provisional assessment was finalized, the importer has to be informed of the basis for proposed finalization so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence on notice may appear to be largely a formality. However the importer is entitled to the protection of the law and this point having been raised by the advocate for the appellant, this has to be accepted. 6. Another ground which was raised is required to be gone into by the Commissioner. This is that the bond which was furnished for provisional assessment did not undertake to pay any fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
