TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit of penalty of Rs. 55,000/-, we take up the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellants' own case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported polyester fabric and claimed the classification of the same under Heading 5407.61. The Revenue, on testing of the samples, was of the opinion that the goods are properly c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal to that effect that wrong claiming of classification in the Bill of Entry by itself is no criteria for confiscation of the goods or for imposition of penalty. 4. After hearing Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR, for the Revenue, we find that the Commissioner in his impugned order has observed that "............. it is true that broadly the goods imported are polyester fabric but in absence of proper no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the goods or for imposition of personal penalty upon the appellants, inasmuch as admittedly, the goods imported by them were polyester fabrics and the appellants had made a declaration of classification in accordance with their own understanding. They were also never approached by the Customs authorities to give more details about the technical specifications of the fabrics and they have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne in paragraph 17 of the impugned order as under: - "17. The request of the importer for clearance of the goods under DFRC cannot be acceded to……", We order for expunging the said line from the impugned order. However, to make it clear that the Customs authorities are at liberty to look into the aspect of clearance of the goods under D.F.R.C. afresh, if they so desire. Needless to say that be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
