TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for early hearing and take up the appeals for final disposal. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant M/s. Jalaram Appliances Polymers, Mumbai and its partner Shri Ashok D. Jain purchased thermo plastic injection moulding machine on high seas sale basis from M/s. Jalaram Appliances Polymers, Mumbai and filed a bill of entry no. 768851 dated 18.11.2009 under EPCG scheme. The invoice packing list and certificate of origin showed that they had imported the injection moulding machine HXF-256 along with one set of hopper dryer and loader of Malaysian origin at a value of US $29500. On examination of the machine, it was found that the machine carried various marks indicating country of origin to be C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants proposing to impose anti dumping duty of Rs.31,73,864/- under the proviso to Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The show-cause notice also proposed confiscation of the said machinery under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and also penalty on the appellant and its partner, Shri Ashok Jain, under Section 112(a)/114AA of the Customs Act. The case was adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Jt. Commissioner of Customs (Export, JNCH) and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of anti-dumping duty of Rs.31,73,864/- leviable under Notification 47/09 dated 12.5.09, under the proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority also confiscated the machine valued at 13,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its that the certificate of origin dated 31.3.2010 given by the Federation of Malaysian manufacturer has been attested by the High Commission of India in Malaysia and therefore, the genuineness of the said certificate cannot be disputed. (3) He also relies on the following judgements 1) Tile Italia Mosaics P. Ltd. vs. CC 2007 (208) LET 437 (Tri-Bang) 2) Kishen Corporation vs. CC (Import), Kolkata 2004 (173) ELT 524, in support of the above contentions. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings given by the lower authority. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. After hearing the arguments of both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified the accuracy of the information contained in the certificate. They have merely verified the signature of the persons who have signed certificate. The declaration in both the certificates have been made by Mr. Lai Mook Khian. A visual examination of the signatures clearly indicate even to a lay man, that the signature contained in both these certificates are substantially different. Further, the certificate dated 31.3.10 issued by the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers contains an endorsement that the rules of origin have been satisfied. It is to be borne in mind that the certificate was issued on 31.3.10. By that time the goods have already been imported into India as the bill of entry is dated 18.11.2009. Therefore, the certificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities that the goods are of Chinese origin liable to anti dumping duty under the provisions of Notification no. 47/09 dated 12.5.09 which imposed an anti dumping duty at the rate of 223% on plastic injection moulding machine of Chinese origin exported from any country other than China. Therefore, we uphold the confirmation of anti dumping duty demand of Rs.31,73,864/- in the impugned order. Inasmuch as the goods have been misdeclared as to the country of origin, they are liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act. The appellant have been given an opportunity to redeem the same on fine of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of confiscation in addition to payment of duty.....