9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Assistant Commissioner for the appellant-Revenue and Shri S. Sankaranarayanan, Learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned Order-in-Appeal and which are undisputed, inter alia, are that the respondent viz. M/s. Salim Enterprises filed Bills-of-Entry Nos. 3462333 dated 31.05.2019 and 4053725 dated 13.07.2019 for clearance of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments and classifying the goods under CTH 84433100; that the Revenue having noticed that the goods were second hand in nature, adhering to the RMS/CCR instructions mentioned in the EDI system and as per the prevailing practice, the cargo covered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods imported by M/s. Salim Enterprises vide Bill-of-Entry No. 3462333 dated 31.05.2019 and the declared value of Rs.20,29,725/- (CIF) (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five only) in respect of the goods imported by M/s. Salim Enterprises vide Bill-of-Entry No. 4053725 dated 13.07.2019 were rejected in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined the value of the goods as Rs.24,18,974/- (CIF) (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four only) and Rs.26,53,988/- (CIF) (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight only) respectively under Rule 9 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the procedures set out under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellant preferred appeals 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 appeals thereby ordering provisional release of the impugned goods, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the Revenue before this forum. 6. In the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority has only followed the order of this Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. M/s. S.P. Associates [Customs Appeal No. 40098 of 2021] & ors. in Final Order Nos. 41931-41971 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
