2006 (8) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hermo Script......- Mitusbishi High Tech Paper Bielfeld GMBH" on the paper reels on examination and got a sample of the goods tested in the Customs House Laboratory. The Chemical Examiner reported thus:- "The sample is in the form of white sheet of paper. It is coated on one side with inorganic substance. It is composed of chemical and mechanical pulp. It has the properties of thermal paper". The authorities made further investigations into the import, from which it appeared to them that the goods had originated from Germany. Having found the goods to be Thermal Sensitive Paper classifiable under Entry 4811 90 94 of the Customs Tariff, the authorities held it to be chargeable to anti-dumping duty (AD duty) in terms of Notification No. 102/2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4.00 lakhs, besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on the proprietor of the appellant-concern. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the lower authority, in an appeal filed by the party. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegation of the Department was that the appellant had misdeclared the goods with intent to evade payment of AD duty. But Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, relating to confiscation and penalty, were not applicable in respect of AD duty as held by the Tribunal in the case of Supreme Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner -2004 (167) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.-Del.). Even otherwise, counsel argued, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted. In any case, the assessee cannot be said to have undervalued the goods with intent to evade payment of AD duty inasmuch as, the lower the assessable value of the goods, the higher the AD duty payable thereon. Counsel finally argued that the aforesaid facts did not attract Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and hence the goods in question was not liable for confiscation and, for that matter, no penalty was liable to be imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Learned SDR reiterated the findings recorded by the original authority and the first appellate authority. 3. After examining the records and considering the submissions, we observe that, in view of the Chemical Examiner's report, which was not contes....