2003 (6) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides as the issue is already covered in favour of the appellants by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 2. The appellant is a 100% EOU and imported polyester fabric and declared the classification of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellants' contention and vide its impugned order confiscated two consignments in question with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) each. He also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the importer. 4. I have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, the importer is under obligation to declare correctly the true nature and composition of the fabric. Such assessment/classification becomes all the more necessary in case the importer is permitted DTA Sale for the goods imported. I have considered the case laws submitted by the importer which are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. From the available records, I find th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that even the Revenue is admitted that the goods imported by the appellants is nothing but polyester fabric. The appellant according to their own understanding has classified the goods under heading 5407.61. It is also a fact that the appellant was never approached by the Customs authorities to give more details about the technical specification of the fabrics. The appellants have not contested; ....