9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate, for the Appellant. Shri Jagdish Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 5-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants through the Customs House Agent, M/s. Challenge Cargo Services, filed bill of entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and Cabinet. It appeared that they had, in fact, imported complete TV kits. The supplier also appeared to be related person as defined under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The value of the goods was re-determined in terms of Rules 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The goods were found to be classifiable under CTH 852812 and CETH 8528.00 and liable to pay duty accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both sides. The perusal of the impugned order no doubt shows that the show cause notice was sent to the appellants at their given address, but remained undelivered. The notice was issued to them twice; firstly on 23-10-2001 and secondly on 27-10-2001. No reply to the show cause notice was furnished by the appellants in spite of issuing reminders. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
