2016 (1) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... N.D. George, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri M.K. Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) : For the Respondent ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi The appellant imported goods vide Bill of Entry No. 367615 dated 25/6/2003 declaring them as Ceramic Floor Tiles. In terms of Notification No. 73/2003-Cus dated 1/5/2003 vitrified tiles attracted anti-dumping at US$ 8.28 per sq. mtr. On testing by Dy. Chie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de and Merchandise Act, 1958. Therefore the consignment was held to be liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) for contravention of Section 11 read with Notification 1/64 and in terms of Section 111(m) for contravention of Section 46 of the Customs Act. In Adjudication the Commissioner upheld the confiscation and imposed fine of Rs. 6 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed penal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that appellant paid Anti-Dumping duty on deciding the tiles drawn out to be vitrified tiles. Therefore it is apparent that they mis-declared the tiles as Ceramic tiles which could have resulted in huge loss of anti dumping duty, therefore the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. Ld. Counsel prayed for reduction in fine. He has not been able to inform....