Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 190 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (1) TMI 190 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 749 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Levy of anti dumping duty - Delay in conducting search - Held that:- It is apparent that they mis-declared the tiles as Ceramic tiles which could have resulted in huge loss of anti dumping duty, therefore the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. Ld. Counsel prayed for reduction in fine. He has not been able to inform the Bench as what is margin of profit to enable us to dete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation order which is letter from the supplier for which he expressed his willingness to take back the goods supplied to the importer. - Since duty paid before issuance of SCN - Redemption fine and penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. C/1033/04 - Final Order No. A/3182/2015-WZB/CB - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri N.D. George, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri M.K. Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecorded on 24/9/2003 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitted that he knew about import of items declaring them as Ceramic Tiles. He agrees to pay differential duty. Accordingly, he paid ₹ 51,59,542/- on 25/9/2003 towards anti dumping duty. In the subsequent statement tendered on 26/9/2003 he stated that they had placed an order for Ceramic Tiles whereas their supplier supplied vitrified tiles and they had already written to the supplier rejecting the consignment. It was found .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mposed penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs under Section 112(a). An amount of ₹ 51,59,542/- paid towards anti dumping duty was appropriated. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that the commercial invoices accompanying the goods described them as Ceramic tiles, moreover vide their letter 19/7/2003 to the supplier have rejected the tiles having defects. In the subsequent correspondence they requested the supplier to take back the goods. The supplier vide letter dated 22/9/2003 gave willingness t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version