2007 (3) TMI 552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The appellants imported impugned goods availing concessional rate of duty admissible to the import from SAARC countries. Subsequent to the import, the Country of Origin Certificate produced for availing concessional duty as required under the relevant Notification No. 105/99-Cus., dated 10-8-99 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further states that the importers had no knowledge about the documents which were fraudulent. He also cites the ratio of the following two decisions in his support : (i) Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Jyoti Industries Ltd. reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 88 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) Zenith Ltd. Ors. v. CC (Prev.), Mumbai reported in 2006 (73) RLT 77 (CESTAT-Mum.). He further pleads th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Authorised Officials of the Bangladesh Government and prima facie, the impugned goods are not eligible for import duty concession. The case laws cited by the ld. Consultant are prima facie of no assistance to the appellant s case as this is a case relating to grant of concessional duty under Preferential Trading Arrangement. It is also the responsibility of the importer under the Customs Act to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X