9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so confirmed a duty demand of Rs.57,79,727/- against the appellant along with imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Durga Impex, Golden Plaza, 1st Floor, Burdwan Road, Siliguri, West Bengal - 734 001 (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") filed a Bill of Entry No. 8244448 dated 19.01.2017 through their authorized Customs Broker for clearance of goods declared as "Polyester bed sheet" from China, with the quantity declared as 21,600 pcs. and classified the same under Tariff Item No. 6304 1990. 2.1. The Revenue was of the view that the goods imported were "Polyester Woven Fabrics" classifiable under CTH 5407 and the appellant had allegedly mis-declared the goods by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kolkata] wherein the decision in the case of Silpha Finvest P. Ltd. (supra) has been followed by this Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties. 6. We find that an identical issue had come up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Silpha Finvest P. Ltd. [Final Order No. 75376 of 2024 dated 29.02.2024 in Customs Appeal No. 75811 of 2018 - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it has been observed as under: - "6. In view of the submissions made by the respondent in their cross-objection, we have to analyze whether the respondent has properly classified the impugned goods or not. 6.1 In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. We further hold that the respondent is liable to pay duty by classifying the impugned goods under CTH 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act and no penalty is imposable on the respondent. No redemption fine is payable by the respondent. 8. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly dispose of the cross-objection filed by the respondent." 6.1. Further, the same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. M/s. Steel Syndicate [Final Order No. 75659 of 2024 dated 22.03.2024 in Customs Appeal No. 75805 of 2018 - CESTAT, Kolkata]. 7. In view of the above, we find that the issue is no more res integra. Therefore, by relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
