TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants contention that that they had not been provided with test report. Further appellants contention that quarantine certificate issued by Peoples of Republic of China should be accepted is not tenable as it is confirmed by the test report that the goods imported were found to be Grade-2A. Therefore the copy of bonafide of inspection certificate and quarantine certificate relied by the appellant is not valid. The adjudicating authority has rightly held that Anti dumping duty is chargeable and the appellants have misdeclared the goods as Grade 4A instead of 2A. The citations relied by the appellant are not applicable to the issue. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the adjudication order and the impugned order in so far as demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution of Bank Guarantee of 50% of ADD. On receipt of the test report [TR No.TTL-STG-94 dt.11.8.2003], it was certified that the sample is of 2A grade. As per Notification 106/03-Cus. dt. 10.7.2003, the import of Mulberry Raw Silk of Grade 2A or below 2A attracts NIL rate of duty. The importer vide their letter dt.21.10.2003 requested to adjudicate the case and requested for waiver of SCN. The importer Shri Rakesh attended the personal hearing and pleaded for lenient view. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods but allowed the goods for redemption on payment of RF of ₹ 1 lakh and also demanded anti dumping duty of ₹ 9,39,149/- and also imposed penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 112. On appeal, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and not liable for penalty. He relied on the following citations :- (1) Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs CC Visakhapatnam- 2004 (168) ELT 49 (Tri.-Bang.) (2) Asha Enterprises Vs CC (Seaport) Chennai -2008 (230) ELT 461 (Tri.-Chennai) (3) Silkone International Vs CC Chennai-2007 (208) ELT 271(Tri.- Bang.) (4) Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs CC Bangalore - 2015 (323) ELT 189 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R reiterated the OIO and the impugned order. The appellant misdeclared the goods both in the invoice and the documents to evade anti-dumping duty. Samples were drawn as per the customs procedure in the presence of representatives of the importer and the same were forwarded to Central Silk Research Institute. Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods imported were found to be Grade-2A. Therefore the copy of bonafide of inspection certificate and quarantine certificate relied by the appellant is not valid. The adjudicating authority has rightly held that Anti dumping duty is chargeable and the appellants have misdeclared the goods as Grade 4A instead of 2A. The citations relied by the appellant are not applicable to the issue. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the adjudication order and the impugned order in so far as demand of ADD. As regards appellants' pleading for non-imposition of fine and penalty, we find that this Tribunal in a recent decision in the case of Silkone International Vs CC Chennai (supra) clearly upheld anti dumping duty, however, set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
