9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the classification of the imported declared by the appellant under CTH 40021100 remained untouched by this order. Anti-dumping notification indicates that the goods falling under customs heading Nos. 3903 and 4002 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were subject to levy of anti-dumping duty. Accordingly, levy was confined to the goods of heading 4002.19 since anti dumping investigation was confined to the goods covered by heading 4002.19. Therefore there cannot be any mis-conception about the product under consideration. Revenue's submission that the appellant did not plead as above before the learned adjudicating authority is untenable as a litigant can raise question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... folder of C/70/2007. 3. Revenue's only grievance today is that antidumping duty having been imposed in terms of Notification No.100/04-Cus dated 26.09.2004, in consequence of the Sunset Review by the designated authority, in terms of his final findings dated 2nd June, 1999, antidumping duty was levied on the above said goods. 4.1 Appellant says that Sunset Review related only in respect of goods which was subject matter of initiation of levy of antidumping duty, which was levied through preliminary findings of the Designated Authority notified on 21st January, 1999 (Ref. page 39 of the appellant's compilation) followed by the final findings of the designated authority notified on 2nd June, 1999 (at pages 68 and 69 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valued at ₹ 1,19,16,276/- should not be confiscated under the provision of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However the goods have been released to the importer under Bond and are not available for confiscation and therefore why the goods in question should not be redeemed on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) The five Bills of Entry as aforesaid should not be assessed finally on the basis of Test Repost dtd. 06.03.2006 form IRMA making the goods chargeable to the Anti Dumping Duty to the tune of ab out ₹ 10,41,101/- @ US $ 0.06879 per Kg as per Notfn No.100/2004 dtd 28.09l2004. (c) The interest as applicable should not be charged on duty not paid at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Section 28 AB of the said Act on the aforesaid amount of anti dumping duty; and (f) the said Importer is also liable for penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 114A of the said Act. 9. There is no whisper of any reason in the show-cause notice to disturb the classification claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the classification of the imported declared by the appellant under CTH 40021100 remained untouched by this order. Anti-dumping notification indicates that the goods falling under customs heading Nos. 3903 and 4002 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were subject to levy of anti-dumping duty. Accordingly, levy was confined to the goods of heading 4002.19 since anti dumping investigation was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
