2005 (7) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The adjudicating authority has confiscated the impugned goods but has allowed redemption of the same on a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. His findings are as under:- What has been imported is a bottle with cap and nozzle. As such it would merit classification und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nal action under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 62. The lower appellate authority has set aside the order-in-original mainly on the ground that earlier similar goods were classified under sub-heading 3923.90. Hence this appeal by Revenue. 2. We have considered the relative tariff entries and the submissions made. It has been argued by the applicant Commissioner as follows:- (i) In the pres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roper importation of the goods which is liable for action under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. We find merit in the submissions made by Revenue and hold that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3923.30 that includes Carboys, bottles, flasks and similar articles and not under the residual category under sub-heading 3923.90. As such, we set aside the imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X