9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts imported Synthetic Waste from Italy against advance licence, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19-4-2002. The said goods were examined and revenue entertained a view that the same was "Acrylic Tow" and not "Synthetic Waste", as declared by the respondents. Accordingly, samples were drawn and sent for test to Bombay Textile Research Association (BTRA), Mumbai, Textile Committee, Worli and DYCC Lab. The test report confirmed that the goods in question were "Acrylic Tow". The denier was found to be ranging between 1.9 to 2.7 and by adopting the value of "Acrylic Tow" of Denier 3.0, the assessable value of the goods was also enhanced. It was also felt that the goods were liable to antidumping duty being "Acryli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (153) E.L.T. 632 (Tri.-Del.), he held that anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed by circulars issued by the ministry inasmuch as the same can be imposed by the Central Government by way of issuance of Notification in the official gazette. However, he took note of the fact that there was some excess weight of the goods and held the same as liable to confiscation. Considering long demurrages for more than two years, he reduce the fine amount to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty to Rs. 25,0000/-. He, however, set aside the penalties on the partners by taking note of the fact that the assessee is in the business of import of "Synthetic Waste" for a number of years and no irregularity has ever been found. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circulars of the Board. For arriving at the above conclusion, he has followed the Tribunal's precedent decision in the case of Beeta Exports. No infirmity can be found in the above view. 8. The appellate authority has held the goods liable to confiscation on the basis that there was excess weight of around 216.50 Kg noted at the time of examination of the goods. The same stands re-calculated to 3675.10 Kgs based on moisture contents of 1.6%. However, he has reduced the fine and penalty by taking into account various factors. We do not intend to interfere in the above quantum inasmuch as the reduction of the same is based on the justifiable reasons. 9. In view of our foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the revenue is reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
