TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility to ADD cannot be overlooked just because the appellant has been magnanimous in remitting more duty. If the said theory is accepted, then the same would affect the classification itself! Hence, the theory of the appellant cannot be accepted as the same lacks any merit. Insofar as the Anti-Dumping Duty levy is concerned, the appellant-importer has given a working wherein it has claimed that what was paid as duty by it was more than what was hypothetically worked out by the Revenue, but however, we cannot get into the arithmetics of the same since, the scope of the appeal is limited. There are no merit in the case of the appellant for which reason the appeal is dismissed. - HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the said order, it appears that the importer filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority per Order-in- Appeal C.Cus. No. 905/2014 dated 12.06.2014, however, having rejected their appeal, the present appeal has been filed before us. 6. Heard Shri L. Gokulraj, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Ld. Additional Commissioner for the Revenue. The only issue to be decided by us is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 7.1 We have gone through the documents placed on record; copy of the Bill-of-Entry reveals the description as: 12MM Extra Clear Glass , whereas the Order-in-Original reveals that what was imported was Clear Float Glass as described on the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso based on the commercial invoice of the foreign supplier, but however, other than a mere claim, no other supporting evidence has been placed on record. The supplier is an interested party just like the importer and hence, a supporting document in the form of an expert opinion was required to be filed by the importer to establish the fact that what was imported was Extra Clear Glass and not Clear Float Glass. When the Revenue doubted the description based on the manual/physical inspection of goods and description mentioned on the goods, the Bill-of-Entry and the commercial invoice would amount to self-serving documents and hence, an independent report of an expert would have come to the aid of the appellant. 8.2 The appellant having no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
