9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange. The CHA M/s. Mathurdas Narandas had filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the importer and the same was assessed. The assessed duty of Rs. 1,16,876/- was paid by the importer vide TR 6 challan No. 130, dated7-5-04. However, on demand neither the importer nor the CHA could produce the copy of assessed Bill of Entry. The same was also not available in the office. As the Bill of Entry was not traceable, the same was reconstructed based on certain documents such as Invoice No. 352 dt.30-2-04and Bill of Lading No. DXBBCO39560, dt. 21-3-04. The Bill of Lading described the goods as 168 packages of "Used Furniture'. But the invoice contained only 13 items. It was also found that the Bill of Entry contained 13 items listed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant to submit assessed Bill of Entry No. 128/30-4-04 and subsequently Bill of Entry was reconstructed when assessed bill of entry was not submitted and reexamination was conducted. After adjudication and appellate proceedings, differential duty has been demanded, fine and penalty have been imposed. He submitted that in view of the fact that the goods have been cleared after first check and value has been enhanced, the proper course of action for the department was to file an appeal against assessment dated30-4-04and department had no right to issue a show cause notice and commence proceedings under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock India Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iption was verified. Report also specifically stated that the goods were properly mutilated woolen rags and were not serviceable garments. In spite of the examination report, the Tribunal had taken a view that reassessment in that case was in order. In this case, the details of the examination report are not available and the original Bill of Entry had been lost. It was submitted that once assessment is made, the Bill of Entry is returned to the appellant to discharge the duty liability and it was for the appellant to come with Bill of Entry and TR-6 challan for proof of payment of duty to get the goods cleared. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the department was responsible for loss of Bill of Entry, cannot be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. cannot be applied to the present case in view of the fact that in that case, it was held that non-challenge of appealable order results in same attaining finality. In this case, no appealable order was passed. As regards other decisions relied upon by the appellant, we find that in both these cases, the decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned SDR has not been considered. Both the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the appellant do not relate to any mis-declaration but relates to valuation of the goods. In both cases, the description of the goods has been correctly declared and there was no evidence available with the department regarding mis-declaration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
