9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ORDER The substantive appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 19-CUS.,/MRT-II/2007, dated 10-12-2007, which upheld the primary order dated 11-5-2007. The appellants had imported goods vide Bill of Entry No. 587/2006, dated 16-6-2006 for clearance of 98.848 M.T. of mixed paper waste. Examination of goods, undertaken in the presence of authorised representative of the Customs House Age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regulated in the manner provided in the Public Notice No. 392(PN)92-97, dated 1-1-1997 issued by DGFT and the appellant could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise to show the import of the said goods was in accordance with the said Public Notice. The CIPET, Lucknow vide their Test Certificate dated 20-9-2006 declared the goods as Polyethylene Terephthalate and toxic. The appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 111 read with Section 119 ibid. 2. No one appeared for the appellant and no request for any adjournment has been received. Accordingly, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills v. CCE [2014 (310) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) = 2014 (36) S.T.R. 1201 (S.C.)], inter alia, stating that CESTAT ought to decide appeal on merits even if appellant or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yor mutually agreed upon. It is obvious that they had stipulated pre-shipment inspection that the goods imported were as per declaration in the Bill of Entry. Thus, the appellants cannot fully absolve themselves of the responsibility to ensure that the goods imported were as per their declaration in the Bill of Entry. 4. In the light of the foregoing factual matrix, we do not find any infirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
