TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant have mis-declared the goods. Country of origin - As regard the issue that whether the batteries imported by the appellant is of IS-9128 specification or otherwise no confirmation was received from BIS. Therefore, only on the basis of report received from ERTL (W) it cannot be said that the appellant have mis-declared the goods - Held that: - the internet website detail alone is not sufficient - As per the documents and certificate of origin it was found that the goods are of Malaysian origin. Therefore, only on the basis of internet website, the learned Commissioner has concluded that the goods are not of Malaysian origin which is not correct - the adjudicating authority need to give a relook on the entire issue and pass a fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant are prohibited goods and ordered for re-export of the same. However, no anti-dumping duty was confirmed. Against the confiscation of the goods redemption fine of ` 2,25,000/- in terms of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was demanded. A penalty of `1 lakh in terms of section 112(a) of the said Act was also imposed. Being aggrieved with the order-in-original, appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri G B Yadav, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on both the issues, i.e. nature of the battery and the country of origin, the investigation could not bring any conclusive evidence to hold that the goods are liable for confiscation. He submits that as regard the nature of goods, whether the goods is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that whatever material relied upon by Revenue for holding the goods as prohibited and in respect of country of origin, the same is not sufficient to hold against the appellant. As regard the issue that whether the batteries imported by the appellant is of IS-9128 specification or otherwise no confirmation was received from BIS. Therefore, only on the basis of report received from ERTL (W) it cannot be said that the appellant have mis-declared the goods. 6. As regard the country of origin, we find that the Revenue has heavily relied upon the internet website to find out the manufacturer of the goods imported by appellant. However, firstly, the internet website detail alone is not sufficie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
