9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.01.2014 upon import of goods described therein as "Extra Clear Glass". On account of glitch in the EDI system, the said Bill-of-Entry could not be cleared under RMS and therefore, was referred back to the Appraising Group for assessment. During manual examination by the examining officers, it appears that the goods carried clear description as "Clear Float Glass Thickness 12mm, country of origin - China". 3. It appears that upon being pointed out, the importer requested for adjudication without Show Cause Notice and without personal hearing. 4. Accordingly, Order-in-Original No. 24049/2014 dated 20.02.2014 came to be passed. The said order has placed reliance on the observations of the examining parties and the examination report, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uest to adjudicate the case without personal hearing as well. By this, the appellant avoided the further investigation/examination by the authorities and the original authority, having no other option, proceeded to conclude the adjudication based on the unrebutted examination report of the officers of the Revenue. This also makes it clear that the appellant did not raise any objection at the first available instance by raising protest to the observations of the manual examination officers. Later on, also, the appellant chose not only not to seek for any Show Cause Notice, but also opted not to participate in the personal hearing as well, thereby putting in black-and-white its explanation. Hence, at the threshold we are of the prima facie v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant were more than what was demanded, it would not in any way affect the classification as such. There was a fundamental dispute as regards classification since clear float glass attracted ADD; the Revenue went by the first check/personal inspection of the cargo and the description label on the goods. The same was adopted since it was never challenged. The appellant, by raising a ground that the duty was paid for Extra Clear Glass, is indirectly trying to justify its classification which cannot be permitted. When there were clearly no doubts in the minds of the Revenue as to what was imported was float glass, then necessary consequences ought to follow, inasmuch as the liability to ADD cannot be overlooked just because the appellant has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
