9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ita Shekhar, Jt. Commr (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: D.N. Panda Appellant says that the goods came were as described in the Bills of Entry Page 18 of the appeal folder, shows that the goods imported were 'Video Door Phone' and those were of Chinese origin. According to appellant, learned authority below mis-classified the goods although those were really 'calling bell' for which adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts of the specific goods and had the character to be classified as such either called as 'Video Door Phone' or 'Bell', which makes no difference to law. Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 makes clear that the goods entering into India having essential character of a specific goods whether in assembled or disassembled form refers to complete goods for levy. Thus appropriate duty on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which was subject to RSP valuation. Mis-declaration of description as well as value (RSP) was made. Learned authority rightly classified the goods under the CTH 8517 which is not challenged by the appellant. Accordingly that is upheld. 8. Appellant was not a manufacturer but it was a trader as has been stated by Shri Shirish Deshpande, Vice President of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 lakhs was imposed. However looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the selling price in the market, imposition of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- is considered to be appropriate. So far as imposition of penalty Rs. 5,00,000/- is concerned, deliberate mis-declaration having been proved from the version of the Vice President of the appellant, penalty imposed remain untouched b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
