2017 (8) TMI 873

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 goods prohibited - Held that: - in accordance with the N/N. 1/64-Cus., country of origin is required to be mentioned on the package of the footwear which appellant failed to do so - However, it is observed from the facts that the appellant proposed to affix the country of origin, i.e. “Made in China” in their factory and certificate can be obtained from the jurisdictional excise authority an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 105/2004 (JNCH), dated 30-11-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. In the said order the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 3.5 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 75,000/- for the reason that appellant have not complied with Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 inasmuch as they h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the footwear which appellant failed to do so. However, it is observed from the facts that the appellant proposed to affix the country of origin, i.e. Made in China in their factory and certificate can be obtained from the jurisdictional excise authority and shall be produced before the Customs Authority, however, same has been denied by the Customs Authority. From the entire facts, it is ob .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X