TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL No. C/250/2012-CU[DB] - C/A/71665/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 25-6-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Ms Stuti Saggi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 54-Cus/APPL/GZB/2012 dated 30/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Ghaziabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Alumunium Scrap and filed Bill of Entry No.007111 dated 23.09.2011 at ICD, Loni. The Original Authority held that there has been mis-declaration in the description of the goods and imported g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the importer. Furthermore, the importer has mis-declared the classification of goods under CTH 76020010 but the goods Aluminium Radiator Scrap without cover tubing i.e. TALLY is properly classifiable under CTH 76020090 and require specific import license from DGFT. The importer failed to produce the required import license. Moreover, for the remaining goods i.e. Taint Tabor there has been a misdeclaration of the quantity imported which was actually found to be 16.07 MT while it was declared as 10.73MT. I find that the party has waived the requirement of SCN and they do not want any personal hearing in the matter. Thus, I find that the importer has mis-declared the goods and are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d), 111 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed ISRI specifications. She has further submitted that all the goods imported by the appellant were classifiable under ISRI specifications of 1997 and the same were falling under Sub-heading 760020010. As a result, there has been no mis-declaration. She has further submitted that the value was enhanced by assessing officer without following the procedure laid down by Customs Act, 1962. She has further submitted that it was held by this Tribunal in assessee s own case decided through Final Order No.70132-70137/2017 dated 17.01.2017 that before enhancing the assessable value, revenue has to first establish that the price is not the sole consideration and such exercise was not carried out in the present case. Therefore, impugned order is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
