2009 (1) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)] -  This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 01/COMMR/IND/2006-CUS., dated 23-3-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) The appellant imported a consignment of polyethylene granules weighing 47.250 MT and declared them as LDPE and prod....

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 valued about Rs. 26 lakh but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-; he also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also held that the exemption was not available and accordingly, demanded duty of Rs. 7,46,619/-. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they have been issued licences for import of both LLDPE and LDPE and both fall under sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for specified quantities of LDPE and LLDPE. The invoices of the manufacturer specifies the grade in a coded form. They have produced invalid licences and also misdeclared the goods. Therefore, he seeks upholding of the order of the Commissioner. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. It is true that they have been permitted import of specified quantities of LDPE and LLDPE under v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for such quantity of goods specified and for the specific value. It is also noted that the trade differentiates between the LDPE and LLDPE. Under these circumstances, we hold that there is mis-declaration of goods imported and the benefit of exemption is not applicable as held by the Commissioner. Therefore, the goods are liable to confiscation and also they are liable for penalty. However, in th....