9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod 16-9-1986 to 24-12-1988, the demand confirmed in the case of 12 Bills of Entry is hit by limitation. He stated that the assessee had declared correctly description of the goods and there was no mis-declaration in their statement that the goods merited classification under Heading 39 of the CTA. He stated that all the consignments were cleared after drawal of samples and after execution of test bonds. He stated that right from 1985 similar goods had been imported and had been cleared by the Customs under Heading 39. He claimed that as against the opinion expressed by the Chemical Examiner, the opinion given by the Shriram Institute for Industrial Research supported the claim that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 39. Their requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stated that the rate of duty on inorganic pigments preparation being lower, the duty confirmed had been worked out at quantum higher than was proper. In reply to a specific query Shri Agarwal stated that the copy of the Departments Chemical Report had been not shown to him and also conceded that this claim that the impugned goods were inorganic pigment preparations could not substantiated by him by producing a Chemical Report of any other Agency including Shriram Institute for Industrial Research. This argument, therefore, does not merit any consideration. 4. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR arguing for the Revenue stated that the Collector in his order has established the fact that the importers had deliberately mis-declared the desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of differential duty cannot be faulted at this stage. We find that show cause notice had given a number of facts leading to the invocation of the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act in invoking the extended period. The learned Advocate would be free to attack the various grounds shown in the show cause notice when the case will come to final hearing. At this stage, however, it appears that the prima facie case is not with the importers on this ground. 7. As regards the penalty, we find that it is the result of the charge of mis-declaration being confirmed by the adjudicating authority. There is no plea made to the effect that payment of penalty would cause undue hardship on the importers. We, however, find that in the cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
