2015 (9) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, he re-determined the value and demanded a differential duty. He has also held that the importer is liable to pay CVD on the basis of MRP. No quantification of duty has been made by the adjudicating authority. Further, the issue of confiscability of the items and the imposition of penalty proposed in the show-cause notice has not been examined by the adjudicating authority. Thus, there are many .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Order-in-Original No.Commr/Adj./Cus-14/2013-14 dated 28/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Goa. Vide the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has held that on the goods imported by the appellant, M/s.Marks International, consisting of various cosmetic items, differential duty is liable to be paid on determined value of ₹ 48,61,973/-. He has also ordered that CVD should be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the submissions made by the Revenue. We also perused the show-cause notice issued to the respondent. 4.1 From the show-cause notice and the impugned order, it is clear that the goods were seized by the Customs and provisionally released on execution of bond and bank guarantee. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the goods are undervalued and therefore, he re-determined .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X