Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (9) TMI 822

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. -  These are applications filed by M/s. Kawarlal & Co., an importer of 'modified starch' and M/s. International EXIM Agency, a Customs House Agent. Adjudicating allegation of mis-declaration of description of 7 consignments of '"PRIMOJEL" as cellulose falling under CTH 3912 as against 'modified starch' ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disposed of and accordingly we take the appeals. 2. The learned Counsel submits that every time a consignment of "PRIMOJEL" was cleared they had submitted supplier's invoice which contained complete chemical name of the product as well as the relevant Tariff Heading namely 3505 10 50. Therefore, the importer could not be alleged to have misdeclared the description of the goods. It is furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JDR reiterates the submissions contained in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties. We find that Revenue has no case that the appellant M/s. Kawarlal & Co. had suppressed the correct description of the goods imported. It is seen that the invoices furnished by the importer contained the complete details of the cons....