Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 28 - AT - CustomsDemand of differential duty - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that:- Appellants declared the goods imported as PVC coated fabrics. Samples were taken and sent for examination and in the report of the Textile Committee there is a specific opinion that the goods in question is neither laminated, nor impregnated. In view of this test report, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the lower authority held that the goods were misdeclared and we find no infirmity whereby the demand of differential duty and the goods were held to be liable for confiscation. - Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that once goods have been cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 the same cannot be confiscated except in pursuance of an order passed in Revision under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 - merit found in the contention of the Revenue that the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside confiscation is not sustainable - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|