9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the importer had knowledge that some goods were of origin other than mentioned in COO. Moreover, it is not discussed as to how 80% goods whose COO was correctly declared were liable to calculation and re-determination of value. Similarly, the plea that the impugned goods are not liable to MRP was not discussed. Moreover, the Appellate Commissioner has based his order on the basis of report/comments dated 18.11.2011 obtained from Additional Commissioner. It is not clear whether copy of such report was given to the appellant and his submissions were obtained. The same are not part of findings of OIO. We also find that the OIO has some contradictions. On the one hand OIO says there are no imports of identical or similar goods, and the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative of the Appellant on 12.09.2011. Adjudicating Authority passed an order, 10077/2011(I) dated 04.10.2011, rejecting the value declared under Rule 12 and re-determining the value under Rule 9 of CVR 2007 and imposing redemption fine of ₹ 2 Lakhs and penalty of ₹ 75,000/- under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. On an appeal filed by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order, 701(Group II-HK) (JNCH) IMP-606, upheld the order of Additional Commissioner. Hence, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they were never put to notice as regards the re-determination of value sought to be done by the Adjudicating Authority; 80% of the goods were found to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OIO, it appears that the Adjudicating Authority has alleged the mis-declaration on the basis of the only fact that a small percentage of goods are not adhering to the country of origin. The appellants claim that they have contracted with the supplies and the goods came from China even though some goods had having marking of the countries. It is not forthcoming in the order as to how the importer had knowledge that some goods were of origin other than mentioned in COO. Moreover, it is not discussed as to how 80% goods whose COO was correctly declared were liable to calculation and re-determination of value. Similarly, the plea that the impugned goods are not liable to MRP was not discussed. Moreover, the Appellate Commissioner has based his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
