2014 (9) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C/40962/2013, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, disposing of the miscellaneous application, for the release of the goods in question, by fixing the date for the hearing of the appeal, on 13-9-2013, instead of releasing the goods in question, imported by the appellant, as prayed for in the miscellaneous application. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the appellant had filed three Bills of Entry, for a total quantity of 506 Metric Tons of 'Monosodium Glutamate', imported from China, in 22 containers. While so, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin, had opened and examined the containers, containing the goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 25 of the said Act, as well as under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. It had also been stated that the imported goods, which in food additive, should conform to the specifications prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Hence, samples had been drawn from the imported consignments and forwarded to the Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore. In the meanwhile, the first respondent had also raised certain issues, asking the appellant to show cause as to why the declared value of the imported goods should not be rejected, under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The appellant had also been aske....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had preferred a statutory appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, the second respondent herein, under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The second respondent Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appellant had paid the admitted duty, and the differential duty and on taking note of the fact that the appellant had furnished the Bank Guarantee, and the bond, had passed an order on 19-7-2013, granting waiver of the principal deposit of the penalty amount. However, the second respondent Tribunal had not ordered the release of the goods, pending appeal. However, it had fixed the date for the final hearing of the appeal, on 13-9-2013. 9. The learned counsel appearing on beh....