9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is filed against the order dated 8.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, New Delhi. The appellant imported Desktop, 3D printer and certain other goods and filed Bills of Entry classifying the same under 84439959 & 84433290. The customs apprising group took the view that the classification declared by the appellant was not appropriate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the goods are classifiable under a heading which is different from that declared by the appellant in the Bills of Entry. They have further submitted that the description of the goods have been correctly given. Accordingly they prayed that the RF and penalty may be set aside. They also relied upon several case laws including Commissioner of Cus. (Export), Mumbai vs. Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd., 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h as they have declared the nature of the goods correctly in the Bill of Entry. 4. In the present case we find that the goods have been declared in the Bill of Entry. The appellant has also indicated the classification of the goods as per their understanding. However, customs took a different view and classified goods under a heading considered appropriate by them. Nothing have been brought under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the imported goods. We are of the view that his case law will be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the absence of any evidence indicating malafide intention on the part of the appellant to mis-declare the goods, even if the classification of the goods claimed by the importer is not correct, there is no justification for confiscating the goods. Accordingly the redemption fine an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
