|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 502 Records
-
2001 (11) TMI 854
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q
2. Admissibility of Modvat credit without declaration under Rule 57T
3. Disallowance of Modvat credit for capital goods with incomplete invoices
4. Denial of Modvat credit for missing duplicate invoice copy
5. Denial of Modvat credit for unendorsed invoices
6. Denial of Modvat credit due to incorrect unit location on invoice
7. Imposition of penalty on the appellants
Analysis:
1. The appellants were denied Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. The judgment referred to various decisions clarifying the availability of Modvat credit on capital goods. The matter was remanded for further consideration in light of these decisions.
2. Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,42,314/- was availed without a declaration under Rule 57T. The Tribunal's decision in Kamakhya Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE was cited, emphasizing that credit cannot be denied solely based on incomplete declarations. The matter was remanded for re-consideration.
3. A sum of Rs. 5,37,782/- was disallowed as Modvat credit for capital goods with incomplete invoices. The judgment cited a decision by the Larger Bench of CEGAT, stating that Modvat credit cannot be granted without proper documentation. The appeal for this amount was rejected.
4. Modvat credit of Rs. 11,818/- was denied due to a missing duplicate invoice copy. The matter was deemed to require re-consideration based on the availability of the missing document.
5. Rs. 2,870/- Modvat credit was denied for invoices not endorsed in favor of the appellants. The judgment upheld this denial, finding no discrepancy in the decision.
6. Modvat credit of Rs. 47,537/- was denied due to a typographical error in the invoice location. Since the appellants had no unit at the incorrect location, the denial was deemed unjustified, and the appeal for this amount was allowed.
7. Considering the technical nature of the infractions and the absence of mala fide intentions, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no penalty upheld.
-
2001 (11) TMI 853
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore ruled on a case involving Modvat credit. The Department appealed, claiming lack of compliance with Modvat procedure, but the Commissioner found substantial compliance with the law. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, citing that procedural lapses should not hinder substantial justice, referencing Circular No. 96/7/95-CX regarding transit sales.
-
2001 (11) TMI 852
Issues:
1. Duty remission on burnt/damaged kraft paper.
2. Denial of Modvat credit.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
4. Demand of interest under Section 11AB.
Issue 1: Duty remission on burnt/damaged kraft paper:
The appellants, manufacturers of kraft paper, faced a fire accident resulting in damage to their goods. They filed an FIR, informed the relevant authorities, and conducted salvaging operations. The final report indicated 3,13,791.200 Kgs. of paper burnt/damaged. A remission application was submitted for duty on this quantity after receiving a show cause notice for the same. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand on a portion of the damaged paper, imposed a penalty, and demanded interest. The appellants contested the duty demand, arguing that remission should be granted for the burnt paper. The Tribunal found that the appellants provided evidence of the salvaging operations and satisfied the requirements for remission under Rule 49. Consequently, the remission was allowed, and no duty was levied on the burnt paper. The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for ignoring crucial evidence and set aside the Commissioner's order.
Issue 2: Denial of Modvat credit:
The Commissioner directed the reversal of Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing the paper burnt in the fire, despite no such proposal in the show cause notice. The Tribunal deemed this action beyond the notice's scope and unnecessary since the duty demand on the burnt paper was vacated. Therefore, the denial of Modvat credit was unwarranted and set aside.
Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC:
A penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act by the Commissioner. The Tribunal ruled this penalty as beyond the show cause notice's scope, especially since the duty demand on the burnt paper was rejected. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified and set aside.
Issue 4: Demand of interest under Section 11AB:
The Commissioner demanded interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Act. However, since the duty demand was vacated due to the remission granted on the burnt paper, the Tribunal found no basis for levying interest. Therefore, the demand for interest was considered unnecessary and set aside.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order and ruling in favor of the appellants on the duty remission, denial of Modvat credit, imposition of penalty, and demand of interest issues. The Tribunal emphasized the appellants' compliance with remission requirements and criticized the adjudicating authority for overlooking crucial evidence in their decision-making process.
-
2001 (11) TMI 851
The appeal was dismissed as there was a delay in filing beyond six months after the order was received. The Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone a delay exceeding three months. The decision cited by the appellant's counsel was considered per incuriam of the statutory provisions and did not constitute a precedent. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (11) TMI 850
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed a reference application seeking clarification on the imposition of penalty under the Central Excise Act when goods were chargeable to the Additional Duties of Excise Act. The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied in such cases, following a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The reference application was allowed, and the case was referred to the Gujarat High Court for opinion.
-
2001 (11) TMI 849
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal by setting aside the order disallowing Modvat credit on iron and steel products due to incomplete particulars on invoices issued by dealers of M/s. SAIL. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the credit and reversed the decision.
-
2001 (11) TMI 847
Issues:
Violation of Notification No. 203/92-C.E., refund of excess payment, applicability of Circular dated 3-1-97, time bar on refund application, unjust enrichment.
Violation of Notification No. 203/92-C.E.:
The case involved a violation of Notification No. 203/92-C.E. by the appellants who took Modvat credit and imported goods duty-free, contrary to condition No. V a of the said Notification. The appellants initially deposited an amount towards the wrongly availed credit, which was deemed insufficient, leading to a further payment request. Subsequently, they were directed to pay interest under a Public Notice related to an Amnesty Scheme for the violation of the Notification.
Refund of Excess Payment - Applicability of Circular dated 3-1-97:
The appellants sought a refund of the excess amount deposited, arguing that it exceeded the payment due as per Public Notice No. 3/97. However, their refund application was rejected on the grounds that the payments made were before the issuance of a Circular dated 3-1-97, which, according to the authorities, did not cover payments made earlier. The appellants contended that all payments related to the violation should be covered by the Circular, citing a Supreme Court decision and emphasizing that the Circular governed the entire payment process, including interest.
Applicability of Circular dated 3-1-97 - Legal Position:
The legal position, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bharti Telecom Ltd., indicated that payments made before the Circular dated 3-1-97 should also be covered by the Amnesty Scheme. The lower authorities erred in holding that the excess payment was not refundable due to being made before the Circular. Additionally, the argument that the Circular did not cover cases where the excess credit amount was ascertainable was deemed unsustainable, as the working out of ineligible input credit based on norms was feasible in any case.
Time Bar on Refund Application and Unjust Enrichment:
The JDR raised concerns about the refund application being time-barred and the potential application of unjust enrichment provisions. However, these objections were dismissed as they were not raised in the show cause notice or addressed in the lower authorities' order, emphasizing that such objections must be fact-specific. Ultimately, the appeal succeeded, granting consequential relief to the appellants based on the above analysis.
This detailed judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, addressed various legal issues surrounding the violation of Notification No. 203/92-C.E., the refund of excess payments, the interpretation and applicability of Circular dated 3-1-97, concerns about time-barred refund applications, and unjust enrichment considerations. The analysis highlighted the legal positions, precedents, and procedural errors, ultimately leading to a successful appeal for the appellants.
-
2001 (11) TMI 846
The appeal was filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the condonation of delay in filing a declaration for capital goods credit. The Assistant Collector rejected the request for condonation of delay, citing that the goods were received beyond the allowed period. The Commissioner upheld this decision based on previous judgments and dismissed the appeal.
-
2001 (11) TMI 845
Issues Involved:
1. Correct classification of certain industrial machinery and equipment under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Inclusion of the value of certain components in the value of the machinery.
3. Alleged evasion of duty in respect of certain bought-out items.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Correct Classification of Industrial Machinery and Equipment:
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of industrial machinery and equipment, specifically electronic solid flow feeder, electronic solid flow meter, impact scale, raw meal feeding system, coal meal feeding system, and mill dosing system. Initially, these items were classified under Tariff Heading 84.79, which covers "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84." However, the Central Excise authorities reclassified these items under Tariff Heading 8423, which pertains to "weighing machinery, including weight-operated counting or checking machines."
The Commissioner, after reviewing the literature and evidence, concluded that these machines were used for electronic dynamic weighing and feeding equipment, recording feed rates of flowing materials in terms of weight per unit of time. Consequently, he classified the equipment under Heading 8423, confirming differential duty demand and imposing penalties.
The appellants contested this classification, arguing that the equipment does not weigh materials but ensures a steady flow of raw materials into manufacturing machinery. They emphasized that the primary function of these machines is to regulate the rate of discharge of materials, not to weigh them. They also pointed out that in trade and commerce, these machines are not bought and sold as weighing machines but as material handling equipment.
Upon careful review, it was determined that the equipment in question is designed to ensure the rate of flow of raw materials in line with the manufacturing capacity of receiving machines. The machines' performance and accuracy are guaranteed concerning the rate of flow, not the accuracy of weighment. Therefore, these machines do not qualify as weighing machinery under Tariff Heading 8423.
2. Inclusion of the Value of Certain Components in the Value of the Machinery:
The components in question include feed hoppers, vibrating feeders, etc. The appellants argued that these items are separate and independent equipment, not parts or components of the solid flow feeder. They also stated that duty had been paid on these items as applicable under the Central Excise Tariff, and there was no requirement to pay duty again under Heading 84.23 as weighing machinery.
The adjudicating authority revised the classification of these items only where the rate of duty under Heading 84.23 was higher than the original assessment rate. The appellants contended that the differential duty recovery was not based on the merits but on the authorities' intent to levy a higher duty rate.
Given the conclusion that the main equipment is not classifiable under sub-heading 84.23, these items would not be classifiable under tariff sub-heading 84.23 as parts. Therefore, the demand for differential duty is not maintainable.
3. Alleged Evasion of Duty in Respect of Certain Bought-Out Items:
The bought-out items include load cells, tachogenerators, differential counters, endless conveyor belts, and other components. The Commissioner demanded duty on these items, considering them inputs in the manufacture of the main machinery. The appellants argued that these inputs were supplied as spare parts for repair/replacement and not assembled into new machinery. They pointed out that no manufacturing activity was carried out on these goods, and they were sold in the same state as bought.
The appellants had informed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise about the resale of inputs as trading activity, and permission was granted for the resale of inputs under Rule 57F(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since these items were not manufactured by the appellants, no liability to pay duty arose, as excise duty is contingent upon manufacture.
Based on these findings, the demand for duty and penalties imposed in the impugned orders were deemed to have no legal justification. The appeals were allowed, and consequent relief was extended to the appellants.
-
2001 (11) TMI 844
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of vertical pump components under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of exemption notification.
3. Validity of the show cause notice and time-bar.
4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Vertical Pump Components:
The appellants, manufacturers of power-driven pumps, were issued a show cause notice alleging mis-declaration and non-payment of union excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,77,129.98. The notice asserted that only the bowl assembly of the pump qualified as a power-driven pump under Tariff Item 30A, while the head assembly and column assembly should be classified under Tariff Item 68 and subjected to duty. The appellants contended that all three components together constituted a complete power-driven pump, and thus should be classified under Item 30A, enjoying the exemption under Notification No. 57/78-C.E. The Tribunal found that the classification of the components under Item 68 was not justified without considering their use in the complete pump assembly.
2. Applicability of Exemption Notification:
The appellants argued that even if the components were classified under Item 68, they were exempt from duty under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., which exempts goods used in the same factory or another factory of the same manufacturer. The Tribunal referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) and Tribunal decisions in Dassani Electra (P) Ltd. and Sunrise Structurals and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., which supported the applicability of the exemption for goods used in further manufacturing within the same factory. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of Notification 118/75 should be extended to the components in question, setting aside the duty demands.
3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice and Time-Bar:
The appellants argued that the show cause notice issued on 23-3-1982 was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Collector had held that the non-filing of classification and price lists amounted to suppression, extending the time limit for issuing the notice to five years. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the time-bar issue in detail, as it found the duty demands themselves to be unjustified due to the applicability of the exemption notification.
4. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 173Q:
The Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q for contravention of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants contended that there was no contravention justifying the penalty. The Tribunal, having found the duty demands unjustified and the exemption notification applicable, held that the imposition of the penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the benefit of exemption under Notification 118/75 to the components in question. The duty demands and penalty imposed were both annulled, disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellants.
-
2001 (11) TMI 843
Issues:
Rectification of Final Order regarding demand of duty on captively consumed goods by 100% EOU.
Analysis:
The appellants sought rectification of the Final Order dismissing their appeal against the demand of duty on goods captively consumed by them. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in confirming the duty demand as they were a 100% EOU, covered by Rule 100A(2) rather than Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules. The learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal overlooked this provision, leading to a mistake in maintaining the duty demand. On the contrary, the Respondent argued that the previous ROM on the same grounds had been dismissed, and there was no apparent mistake in the order. The Respondent cited legal precedent to support their contention.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ROM by the appellants on the same grounds had been dismissed after detailed consideration. The Tribunal held that the second ROM was not maintainable based on the principle that the same grounds had already been addressed and rejected in the earlier ROM. The Tribunal referred to precedents indicating that a second ROM against the same order is not permissible. The appellants' argument that the mistake pointed out in the earlier ROM persisted was not accepted, and detailed reasons for dismissal were provided. Therefore, the second ROM seeking rectification on the same grounds was deemed not maintainable.
Furthermore, on the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the appellants' argument that they were not liable to pay duty on captively consumed goods as a 100% EOU had been thoroughly discussed in the impugned order. The Tribunal concluded that duty was payable even for goods removed for captive consumption. The mere absence of specific rule references in the order did not imply that the plea was not considered. Even if the appellants' plea was assumed to be wrongly rejected, the Tribunal held that rectification could not be entertained if the issue was debatable. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that rectification is not permissible for debatable questions or unexamined points in fact or law. The appellants' request for rehearing and rewriting of the final order through the ROM was deemed impermissible under the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the ROM application and ordered its dismissal based on the above discussions.
-
2001 (11) TMI 841
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act'62 for misdeclaration
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)(iii) of the Customs Act'62
3. Comparison of goods for valuation purposes
4. Requirement of expert opinion in determining comparability of goods
5. Necessity of a speaking order in legal proceedings
Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from an Order-in-Original directing the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 12,79,377.40 CIF under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act'62 due to alleged misdeclaration, with redemption allowed on a fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 65,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a)(iii) of the Customs Act'62.
2. The appellants contended that they had declared the consignment accurately in the Bill of Entry, specifying the contents and their value. They argued against the department's reliance on a different invoice to enhance the value for duty purposes, asserting that the goods were not comparable due to differences in origin, time, quality, and quantity.
3. The appellants emphasized the necessity of expert opinion to establish the dissimilarity between the goods declared and those referenced in the disputed invoice. They cited legal precedents to support their argument that the valuation should adhere to established principles, highlighting that no expert opinion was sought by the Commissioner.
4. The Commissioner's reliance on her visual examination to determine the similarity of the goods was challenged, emphasizing the need for an expert jeweler's assessment. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of a proper legal basis in the Commissioner's order and directed a de novo consideration by the original authority.
5. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submissions, noting that the Commissioner's findings lacked a legal foundation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a speaking order and ordered a fresh examination of the evidence, providing the appellants with an opportunity to refute any new evidence presented by the department.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original authority for a reevaluation in accordance with legal principles and precedents, emphasizing the necessity of expert opinion and adherence to established legal standards in customs valuation cases.
-
2001 (11) TMI 840
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order allowing Modvat credit for electronic yarn evenness tester as capital goods used in yarn manufacturing. The decision was based on a previous Tribunal ruling in a similar case.
-
2001 (11) TMI 837
Cognizance of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that:- If the accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop payment notice had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, then offence under section 138 would not be made out. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused. Thus, a Court cannot quash a complaint on this ground.
-
2001 (11) TMI 835
Issues:
1. Applicability of duty rate on the date of receipt of Bill of Entry.
2. Interpretation of Customs Act regarding duty payment timeline.
3. Comparison of practices at different ports for timber clearance.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the rejection of the appellant's claim that the duty rate applicable should be based on the date of receipt of the Bill of Entry. The appellant argued that the import of duty-free timber before a specific date should not incur duty if cleared after that date due to procedural delays. They highlighted the practice of bonding timber without duty payment at Tuticorin port and compared it to practices at other ports, emphasizing discriminatory treatment.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Surfactants (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and sections 15, 49, and 59 of the Customs Act. It was concluded that the imported goods were not warehoused goods under Section 59, and duty was rightly demanded from the date of Bill of Entry presentation, as per the Customs Act provisions.
3. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the Commissioner's detailed analysis, upheld the decision. It was established that duty should be levied from the date of Bill of Entry presentation or numbering, as per the law and precedents cited. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, noting the distinction in the Mangalore port case where no Bill of Entry was filed, thus affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the timeline for duty payment based on Bill of Entry presentation and upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding duty levy. The comparison of practices at different ports did not affect the outcome, as each case was assessed based on its specific circumstances and legal provisions.
-
2001 (11) TMI 832
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the imported goods described as Waste Paper Multiwal Bags Scrap, directing them to be treated as scrap and transported to the importers' factory for pulping under Customs supervision. The appellants are to bear all expenses. The decision was influenced by a previous judgment involving similar circumstances.
-
2001 (11) TMI 822
Issues: Classification of imported goods under sub-headings 5505.10 and 5506.30 of the CETA, violation of rules of natural justice by the Commissioner of Customs, request for retest and cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner, setting aside the impugned order.
In this case, the appellants challenged the classification of imported goods described as acrylic waste under sub-heading 5505.10 of the CETA, while the Revenue argued for classification under sub-heading 5506.30 as acrylic fibre based on the Chemical Examiner's report. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duty and penalty, along with a redemption fine. The appellants contended that the impugned order violated natural justice by not allowing a retest of the sample or cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner.
The learned Counsel argued that the Commissioner's order was unsustainable due to the denial of the retest and cross-examination requests, essential for challenging the classification. The Revenue maintained the correctness of the order, stating that the request for cross-examination was abandoned by the appellants during adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had the right to request retesting and cross-examination to support their claim of classification under sub-heading 5505.10, and the Commissioner's refusal constituted a violation of natural justice, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for retesting the sample if available, or allowing cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner if the sample was unavailable. This decision aimed to ensure a fair adjudication process and uphold the principles of natural justice in determining the correct classification of the imported goods under the CETA.
-
2001 (11) TMI 819
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered the liability to duty of cinders in a factory. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Gujarat High Court and ruled that the cinders in question do not arise from manufacture and should be classified as "other ash" under Heading 26.21. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
2001 (11) TMI 818
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty against the main appellant company and imposition of penalties.
2. Seizure of excess goods and shortage of inputs leading to demand of duty.
3. Reliance on entries in the register for duty confirmation.
4. Arguments regarding the nature of entries in the register and burden of proof.
5. Confirmation of demand of duty for inputs found short.
6. Confiscation of excess goods and imposition of fines.
7. Imposition of personal penalty on the authorized signatory.
Issue 1:
The judgment confirmed the demand of duty against the main appellant company, M/s. Sonex Chemicals, amounting to Rs. 1,64,219.38, and imposed penalties totaling Rs. 2,01,218.88. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the authorized signatory under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Issue 2:
The Central Excise Officers found excess stock of Acid Slurry and Sulphuric Acid during a visit to the appellant's factory, along with a shortage of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB). This led to the seizure of the excess goods and issuance of a show cause notice demanding duty for goods cleared without payment and recovery of credit availed for the inputs found short.
Issue 3:
The authorities relied on entries in a specific register to confirm the duty demand. The register contained entries under the heading "Quantity sold and stock," which the authorized signatory admitted were related to sales that missed Central Excise Invoices.
Issue 4:
The appellant argued that the entries in the register were for planning purposes and did not reflect actual sales. They contended that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to show goods were cleared without duty payment. However, the Tribunal found the entries to be significant in determining duty liability, shifting the burden to the appellants to explain the entries.
Issue 5:
The demand of duty for inputs found short was confirmed as the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the shortages while operating under the Modvat Scheme.
Issue 6:
The excess goods were confiscated under Rule 173Q, with a fine imposed. However, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation based on a precedent that confiscation under Rule 173Q was not applicable, recommending confiscation under Rule 226 instead.
Issue 7:
The personal penalty imposed on the authorized signatory was set aside as the Additional Commissioner did not establish the conditions for invoking Rule 209A satisfactorily.
In conclusion, the judgment upheld the duty demand against the appellant company, confirmed the duty for inputs found short, set aside the confiscation of excess goods, and annulled the personal penalty on the authorized signatory.
-
2001 (11) TMI 816
The appeal considered whether certain notifications applied to goods imported, stored in a bonded warehouse, and removed later. The Commissioner concluded that the benefit of one notification would apply. The appeal argued that applying the notification amounted to revaluing the goods, but the tribunal disagreed, stating that the value determined on importation remains unchanged. The tribunal dismissed the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
