2014 (3) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the case of the appellant on merits, when the Chairman and the Managing Director of the appellant company had admitted during the investigation that goods were of China origin and were loaded at Port of Shanghai in China - appellant is not in a position to deposit 25% or even 10% of the duty amount - Therefore, decided against assessee. - Custom Appeal (L) No. 69 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-2-201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rigin and were loaded at Shanghai Port and they were sent to India via Korea. The Chairman and the Managing Director of the appellantcompany admitted during the investigation that the goods in question originated from China and were loaded at Shanghai Port and transshipped from Korea to India. Since the citric acid originated from China is liable to anti dumping duty, the Commissioner of Customs b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... everal substantial questions of law, however the basic question of law is whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the appellant to predeposit 50% of the duty amount of Rs.1,24,40,415/for the purposes of hearing the appellant's appeal on merits. 5. It was submitted that the appellant had purchased the goods on High Sea and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay anti dumping duty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X