9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 and no. 760469/23.07.2010 which were held liable to confiscation under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 following a finding of mis-description with consequential enhancement of assessable value and imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 that were upheld by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva in the impugned orders. 2. While the importer contended that the 'adhesive coated jumbo rolls' were 'off cut/odd lot', the lower authorities have held these to be of prime quality and thus mandating a higher assessable value. The report on physical examination of the goods that, though comprising of five or six different widths, numerous rolls of consistent dimensions and grades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are accompanied by invoice issued by the manufacturer. 4. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative in his ardent defence of the impugned order. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant had declared the first of the consignments as 'plain plastic film' and the other two consignments as 'adhesive coated jumbo rolls' with unit price of US $425/kg and US $ 450/kg respectively. Even though the manufacturer-supplier did, in their communication, clarify the nature of the goods, the appellant has not been able, either before the first appellate authority or before us, to controvert the findings that rolls were consistent dimensions in the imported consignment. In those circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eforehand the findings of the original authority, it is well-nigh impossible to expect the importer to make a submission to counter those. That could only have been raised on proceedings before the first appellate authority. 8. The appellant did present a detailed computation on the negative margin of profit arising from the imposition of excessive fine and penalty. The first appellate authority appears to have placed more emphasis on the discretionary power to determine the quantum of fine and penalty instead of considering the computations offered by the appellant. 9. In our opinion, these flaws in the order of the first appellate authority deprives it of legality and propriety that must be rectified. In order to enable that exercise to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
