9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns for stay of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai and the appeals were filed by the above appellants. 2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner redetermined the value of the imported goods, confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,57,097.80 on the excess quantity found in the consignment, confiscated the excess quantity of 80378.851. mtrs. under Section 111(d), 111(m) and 111(l) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above fabrics of different widths. The consignment was examined in detail. As against the declared width of 44² and 58², the rolls were found to be having the width of 44² to 71². On physical inventorisation of all the goods as above, the position appeared as under : Sr. No. Width decl. No. of rolls Length declared in mtrs/sq. mtrs. Actual length in mtrs/sq. mtrs. Difference in mtrs/sq. mt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and why the value declared should not be enhanced. This show cause notice was answerable to the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) having his office at 2nd floor, New Custom House, Mumbai. The case was however adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, and the impugned order was passed by him. 5. While arguing on behalf of the appellants, the learned advocate durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The learned advocate relied on this decision and requested that the pre-deposit may be dispensed with and the main appeal heard. 6. Heard both sides. 7. We observe that the show cause notice in this case was made answerable to the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) and it was ultimately heard by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) and was decided by him. Following the ratio of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
