2006 (8) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla whereby the goods imported by the appellant were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed release of the same on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The goods wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he description of the goods, the description of the goods was given as per invoice and the goods in question were imported under the procurement certificate as the appellant was 100% EOU. The contention is that the appellant declared the goods classifiable under Chapter 25 on the basis of the previous importer and now the adjudicating authority held that goods are classifiable under Chapter 68 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were under procurement certificate issued by the Central Excise authorities. The appellant gave the description of the goods as in the invoice. There is no allegation that appellant suppressed the description of goods or misdeclared the goods to evade duty. The procurement certificate was subsequently amended by competent authority to the effect that the goods in question are classifiable under C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X