2010 (8) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant. Shri S.R. Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Shri A.K. Babbar, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant's states that the original importers named in the IGM did not come forward to clear the impugned goods and hence the appellants cleared the same after the exporter was allowed by customs to sale it to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aware of the original mis-declaration in the IGM. He also states that the appellants have violated the DGFT notification which requires seconds and defective goods to be imported at designated ports. He further states that the value adopted by the adjudicating Commissioner is based on value of contemporaneous imports. He supports the impugned order in view of the above. 3.After hearing both sides .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of Section 111 (d) cannot be made against the appellants. 4. However, we find that the Adjudicating Commissioner has also confiscated the impugned goods for violation of Section 111(m) which deals with mis-declaration of value. In the present case, the appellants had initially declared the lower value and have subsequently agree to pay duty on the higher value determined by the Custom a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X