9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1975 and also under the same EXIM Code of the ITC (HS) for classification of Export and Import Policy, 1997-2000. 2. The Customs Authorities felt that the goods imported did not appear to be classifiable under the aforesaid EXIM Code, as the same related to the dried vegetables. The imported Garlic did not appear to be the dried one. The samples were drawn from the consignment and sent to the Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine and Fumigation Station, Amritsar asking them to clarify as to whether the imported Garlic were fresh or dried. The Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine and Fumigation Station, Amritsar vide his letter dated 20-8-1999 stated that the sampled Garlic was not a dried Garlic and that it had got water conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962 but gave an option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 86,416/-. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 43,208/- on the party under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The party filed an appeal against the above order and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dated 30-6-2000 obser-ved that it appeared to be a borderline case, and therefore, he would confirm the classification of the imported goods as arrived at by the original authority, specifically when the same was not disputed at the adjudication stage. The Commissioner (Appeals), however reduced the amount of redemption fine and personal penalty to Rs. 864/- and Rs. 432/- respectively, as he felt that the same were excessive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made before me. As could be seen from the letter dated 23-8-1999 of the Respondents addressed to the Customs Authorities - extracts from which are appended above - the Respondents had given up their right to contest this case on merits before the original authority. They had submitted before the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs that they admit that the import of goods required a licence and they did not have any Import Licence and their case should be decided without issuing a show cause notice or without fixing a personal hearing. In pursuance of having received such undertaking from the Respondents, the Joint Commissioner passed the impugned order against the party. The Respondents never contested their case on merits at any stage of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
