2005 (12) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the goods as wool waste. The goods were examined and it was found that the goods were not wool waste but acrylic fibres. A Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for assessing the goods as acrylic fibres by enhancing the value of the goods and also proposing imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority assessed the goods in question i.e. acrylic fibre and also held that the acrylic fibre originating from USA is liable to pay anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 81/97-Cus. A personal penalty was imposed on M/s H.B. Fibres. A Personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed on Shri Ravi Jagota, M.D. of M/s Youngman Industries as he was the actual importer. 3. The appeals were filed and during the hearing of the appeals, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sanjeev Arora and Shri Pradeep Sarin is not sustainable. 5. The contention on behalf of M/s H.B. Fibres Ltd. is that the anti-dumping duty was imposed on the Acrylic Fibre originated from USA was imposed by Notification No. 81/97-Cus., dated 24-10-97 thereafter on the review petition filed by the forum of Acrylic Fibre manufacturers the review proceedings were started and Designated authority taken the period of investigation from 1-4-98 to 31-3-99 for review and a fresh notification was issued i.e. Notification No. 86/2000-Cus., dated 8-6-2000 for imposition of anti-dumping duty. This notification was challenged by Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. before the Tribunal and during the pendency of the appeal the Designated Authority conceded tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r instructions that no sticker or description should be on the bales. Even in the statement Shri Sanjeev Arora submitted that his writing on the intend was made by him. The Revenue also submitted that if the oral testimony is not to be taken into consideration as the witnesses were not coming for cross-examination. The documentary evidence by way of intend which was received from the US Customs shows that the import was by M/s Youngman and belongs to the present appellant and the special instructions on the indent were that no sticker or description should be on the bales which shows that everything was done in respect of mis-declaration the value and description on the instructions of the present appellant, therefore, the penalty was right....