9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), (Delhi, New Customs House). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed Bill of Entry No. 11329, dated 1-11-2000 for clearance of "Velour" classifiable under Tariff Heading 6002.43 (hereinafter referred to as 'the goods') imported from China and declared the value of goods as Rs. 4,70,335/- (CIF). The appellant had declared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... China, by another importer. The appellant vide their letter dated 13-11-2000 requested for waiver of show cause notice; they however requested for personal hearing which was granted on 20-11-2000. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order held that the description given in all documents including the Bill of Entry is commercial description and not the technical description to mislead the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upees one lakh only) and also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on them. 2. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) alleging that the value enhancement at US $ 3.06 per Kg. is without any basis. The department had not supplied the copy of invoice of the other importer (relied upon document) and, therefore, enhancement of value of goods is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rigin. No copy of the invoice containing the price of 0.84 US $ per yard equivalent to US $ 3.06 per Kg. has been produced before us. The appellants had agitated this point before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has totally glossed over the issue. It is, therefore, not known as to how the said price can be applied to the present imports in the absence of establishing a case that the price relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
