9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S DELHI PHOTOCOPIERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GR. 5) CHENNAI II ORS. [ 2021 (8) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT] has been followed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. KUTTY IMPEX [ 2022 (9) TMI 1049 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, the same is required to be followed in the case on hand as well. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 40391 of 2022 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40335/2022 - Dated:- 23-9-2022 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. Balakumar, Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagement Rules, 2016, E-Waste Management Rules, 2016, authorization of DGFT under FTP, 2015-20 and applicability of BIS as required under Compulsory Registration Order, 2012, apart from compliance to the RMS instructions. 4. The Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original No. 78905/2020 dated 06.01.2021 has inter alia found that the respondent:- Had not complied with the provisions of Domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016 read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012; Failed to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods, as required under paragraph 2.31 of the FTP, 2015-20; and Mis-declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962 on the importer for having rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) ibid. (v) Imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer for the non-compliance of the procedures set out under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority having heard the appellant as well as the representative (Mr. R. Syam Prasad, Appraiser) for the Revenue, allowed the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the impugned goods, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
