2015 (12) TMI 794

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 Petitioner Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR) : For the Respondent ORDER Per: P.K. Jain Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was importing Epoxy Resin Epotec and clearing it without payment of duty under Notification No. 85/2004-Cus. for basic customs duty, Notification No.6/2006 for CVD and Notification No.20/2006-Cus. for SED purpose. They were following t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and also confirmed interest leviable on the said amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case covers about 72 bills of entry and they were regularly importing the said item and according to them SED was not chargeable under serial No.1 of the table annexed to Notification 20/2006-Cus. However, when the DRI officials pointed out that the be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tever is submitted by the appellant is accepted by the department and in such a situation it is the responsibility of the importer to ensure that the assessment is correctly done. In the bill of entry, the appellant has declared that whatever has been stated in the bill of entry is correct while the position is that they were not eligible to the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. but still they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notification in view of entry at serial No.1 of the table annexed to the said notification. We also note that out of 72 bills of entry, approximately 40% bills of entry were passed through the officers and the remaining were cleared under RMS system. We note that even the bills of entry which were not cleared through RMS system were passed through the officers. The officers could not point out tha....