2006 (3) TMI 467

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. Shri P.K. Rai, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed these applications only for waiver of penalties. The applicants are not asking for waiver of duty imposed under the impugned order. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were imported by one M/s. Aman Traders owned by Shri Surya Naryan Mishra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e imposed prior to this amendment. The applicant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Supreme Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CC reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 439 in support of their claim. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that as the goods were originated from China, therefore, liable for anti-dumping duty and this fact was suppressed by the importer. 6. We find that in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X