2015 (6) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hearing both sides we find that the Bills of Entry are live consignment and involves on classification dispute ad considering the necessitating nature early hearing application is allowed. After dispensing with the stay application, we proceed to dispose of the main appeal itself at this stage. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Hook and Eye and three Bills of Entry Nos. 6382741 and 6381744 both dated 8.8.2014 and 6468065 dated 18.8.2014 self-assessed the goods under Chapter 8308 1010 BCD @10%. These bills of entry were scrutinized on 11.8.2014, 12.8.2014 and 22.8.2014 and customs duty was paid on that date. After the examination of goods under second check the said Bills of Entry were returned to the concern....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order took a new stand based on the websites of junglee.com, snapdeal.com, amazon.in and had come to a conclusion that items are not hook and eye as allowed by adjudicating authority but these are known as bra extenders . This fact was not informed to them nor was any opportunity given to argue before the appellate authority. The goods imported are only hook and eye and it is not bra extender and they have strong evidence to prove that it is not used as bra extender but only used as hook and eye individually cut and used and never been used as bra extender. She also produced samples of hook and eye before the Bench. Since principles of natural justice not followed by the original authority and the lower appellate authority she prayed f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er at page 10 and 11 also recorded in his finding these facts as under:- "Non-issue of speaking order ratifying the assessment Once reassessment is done contrary to the self assessment of the importer, the Group is bound to issue a speaking order under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. But in this case speaking order is not issued by the group. The LAA has forwarded cross-objections justifying the classification. It is made clear that issuance of cross objection cannot take the place of the finding of an order in original. In these factual circumstances, I proceed to decide the case on merits. From the above it is clear that the appellate authority clearly held that Group has not issued a speaking order but he chose to decide....