9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff. The number of men s jackets and ladies jackets declared were respectively 3020 and 405. On examination, it transpired that the men s jackets and ladies jackets were not articles of apparels classifiable under Chapter 61 and were correctly classifiable under chapter 62 of the Customs Tariff. The jackets were found to be appropriately classifiable under Chapter sub-headings 6203.3990 and 6204.3990. As against the ad valorem duty leviable on articles falling under Chapter Heading 61, the impugned goods attracted duty at specific rate. The number of men s jackets were found to be 3450 as against declared 3020 and the ladies jackets 330 as against declared 405. Shri Jayesh P. Surana, Proprietor of M/s. Siddharth Marketing, deposed in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he discrepancy arose as the supplier had sent excess quantity of men s jackets and less quantity of ladies jackets compared to the purchase order and invoice. The importer could not be penalized for claiming a wrong classification for assessment of the goods imported. It had declared the price paid for the jackets and there was no misdeclaration. The finding of the adjudicating authority as regards misdeclaration of classification and assessable value was incorrect and not sustainable. The penalty imposed on Shri Jayesh P. Surana was not sustainable and deserved to be set aside. 3. Ld. SDR submits that Shri Jayesh P. Surana rendered a statement under Section 108 of the Act in his own hand writing, wherein he had deposed that the unit pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Shri Jayesh P. Surana had stated that the transaction value was not the price mutually negotiated and accepted between the supplier and himself and the price was declared in the Bill of Entry for the purpose of declaration without any knowledge about the actual value of the goods and that the value was arbitrarily low. There is nothing on record to support this finding. Therefore, the allegation of misdeclaration of description, price and quantity of the impugned goods cannot be validly found to have been deliberately made. Admittedly the quantities of both varieties of jackets declared were different from the respective quantities imported. Therefore, these jackets were rightly confiscated by the Commissioner under Section 111(m) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
