https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84758 The appeal involved mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods under the DEEC scheme, where goods were found to be prime acrylic tow instead of synthetic waste. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty, denying benefits under the DEEC Scheme. The jurisdiction of DRI officers in seizing goods was upheld based on test results confirming the quality of the goods. The goods were classified as prime quality acrylic tow, leading to assessment under Tariff Heading No. 5501.30. The tribunal reduced fines and penalties after review, confirming the rest of the impugned order. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:08:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84758 The appeal involved mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods under the DEEC scheme, where goods were found to be prime acrylic tow instead of synthetic waste. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty, denying benefits under the DEEC Scheme. The jurisdiction of DRI officers in seizing goods was upheld based on test results confirming the quality of the goods. The goods were classified as prime quality acrylic tow, leading to assessment under Tariff Heading No. 5501.30. The tribunal reduced fines and penalties after review, confirming the rest of the impugned order. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84758