9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009-Cus. dated 22/04/2009, in imposing the anti-dumping duty. Hence, the stand taken by the appellants that such duty cannot be levied on the appellant is factually incorrect. It is also a fact on record that the appellant had not filed the IGM correctly inasmuch as there is mis-declaration of goods furnished therein. Further, no amendment of IGM had ever been sought by the person in-charge of the vessel, before filing the B/Es by the appellants. Since there is incorrect mention of dutiable goods in the IGM, the same are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since, the appellants herein have not submitted any plausible evidence or records to prove the case otherwise, the impugned order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls of Entry on the basis of invoices and packing list. On examination of the import documents, the Department observed that there is complete mismatch of the description of goods mentioned therein vis- -vis the IGM and Bills of Lading inasmuch as the description of the goods contained in the Bills of Lading was SS Magnetic Melting Scrap Grade 430 , whereas the description provided in the Bills of Entry were SS melting scrap grade-430, stainless steel, secondary cold rolled stainless steel grade 316 and SS melting scrap grade-430, stainless steel, secondary cold rolled stainless steel grade 316 stainless steel secondary cold roll secondary cutting sheets grade 304 respectively. On perusal of the import documents filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -dumping duty. Hence, the stand taken by the appellants that such duty cannot be levied on the appellant is factually incorrect. It is also a fact on record that the appellant had not filed the IGM correctly inasmuch as there is mis-declaration of goods furnished therein. Further, no amendment of IGM had ever been sought by the person in-charge of the vessel, before filing the B/Es by the appellants. Since there is incorrect mention of dutiable goods in the IGM, the same are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. I also find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has elaborately discussed the role played by the appellants in respect of mis-declaration of the goods, but took a lenient view in reducing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
