9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the objection of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is an inordinate delay in challenging the assessment is not tenable in law as the appellant has moved an application seeking amendment in the Bill of Entry after the expiry of five and half months only. Further, with regard to the country of origin, the appellant has not been able to clearly establish with the documents that the country of origin is Russia as there are certain discrepancies in the Certificate of Country of Origin vis-à-vis the commercial invoice issued by the Sojitz Corporation and further the commercial invoice mentions the contract and the purchase order in the invoice on the basis of which goods have been exported which have not been brought on record to clearly es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for re-assessment stating that the subject Bill of Entry was assessed on 29.04.2016 and passed out of Customs charges on 10.05.2016. Hence, no re-assessment is admissible as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged the letter dated 26.10.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 1021/2017 dated 19.12.2017 remanded the issue to the original authority to pass a speaking order and decide the merit of amendment being a goods of re-assessment. Thereafter on remand Deputy Commissioner in De novo Order dated 08.03.2018 rejected the amendment on account of inordinate delay and also on the ground that the commercial invoice is sourced from J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed objection was raised by the Department and it was found that the appellant is liable to pay Anti-dumping duty and thereafter he voluntarily paid the Anti-dumping duty and thereafter the Bill of Entry was cleared on 10.05.2016. He further submitted that once the appellant has accepted his liability to pay the Anti-dumping duty and paid the same without any protest, thereafter he cannot get the amendment in the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act. He further submitted that the appellant has not strictly complied with the conditions of the Notification 48/2012 which provides that in the matter of import of Melamine falling under Chapter 29 of the First schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 originating in, or exported fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) that there is an inordinate delay in challenging the assessment is not tenable in law as the appellant has moved an application seeking amendment in the Bill of Entry after the expiry of five and half months only. Further I find that with regard to the country of origin, the appellant has not been able to clearly establish with the documents that the country of origin is Russia as there are certain discrepancies in the Certificate of Country of Origin vis- -vis the commercial invoice issued by the Sojitz Corporation and further the commercial invoice mentions the contract and the purchase order in the invoice on the basis of which goods have been exported which have not been brought on record to clearly establish that country ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
