9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods were examined and it was found that the goods were not wool waste but acrylic fibres. A Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for assessing the goods as acrylic fibres by enhancing the value of the goods and also proposing imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority assessed the goods in question i.e. acrylic fibre and also held that the acrylic fibre originating from USA is liable to pay anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 81/97-Cus. A personal penalty was imposed on M/s H.B. Fibres. A Personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed on Shri Ravi Jagota, M.D. of M/s Youngman Industries as he was the actual importer. 3. The appeals were filed and during the hearing of the appeals, the contention on behalf of M/s H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not sustainable. 5. The contention on behalf of M/s H.B. Fibres Ltd. is that the anti-dumping duty was imposed on the Acrylic Fibre originated from USA was imposed by Notification No. 81/97-Cus., dated 24-10-97 thereafter on the review petition filed by the forum of Acrylic Fibre manufacturers the review proceedings were started and Designated authority taken the period of investigation from 1-4-98 to 31-3-99 for review and a fresh notification was issued i.e. Notification No. 86/2000-Cus., dated 8-6-2000 for imposition of anti-dumping duty. This notification was challenged by Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. before the Tribunal and during the pendency of the appeal the Designated Authority conceded that the determination of normal value, export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be on the bales. Even in the statement Shri Sanjeev Arora submitted that his writing on the intend was made by him. The Revenue also submitted that if the oral testimony is not to be taken into consideration as the witnesses were not coming for cross-examination. The documentary evidence by way of intend which was received from the US Customs shows that the import was by M/s Youngman and belongs to the present appellant and the special instructions on the indent were that no sticker or description should be on the bales which shows that everything was done in respect of mis-declaration the value and description on the instructions of the present appellant, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed. 7. The contention of the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on the appellant. 9. In the case of M/s H.B. Fibres, we find that the claim of the appellant is that the goods in question are assessable to anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 72/2001-Cus. The argument is that anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification No. 81/97-Cus. after review it is admitted by the Designated Authority in the appeal filed by M/s Thai Acrylic Fibre (supra) that rate of duty was wrongly fixed and Designated Authority agree to re-quantify the rate of duty and after the decision of the Tribunal under Notification No. 72/2001 was issued. We find that the goods were assessed under Notification No. 81/97-Cus. and this notification was never challenged by the importer or exporter. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
