TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lassification under heading 6908.90.90. The goods were assessed and on second check basis, duty was paid. During examination of the goods, it was noticed that the goods were not actually glazed ceramic tiles but were glazed vitrified porcelain tiles of UAE origin, which were indicated in the packages. As glazed vitrified porcelain tiles of UAE origin attracted anti-dumping duty, as imposed under Notification No. 73/2003-Cus., it was concluded that the importer-appellant had misdeclared the goods to evade anti-dumping duty due to which the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also that the importer is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also further noticed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the goods clearly indicates that they were glazed ceramic tiles and because the appellant omitted to mention the goods were vitrified does not mean there is misdeclaration on the part of the appellant. As regards the countervailing duty on the imported goods levied on the MRP basis, it is his submission that since the tiles which were imported were for personal use, the question of affixing MRP by the supplier or the appellant himself does not arise as if these goods are not resold. There is no reason for them to affix MRP. For this proposition, he relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Legrand (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai 2014 (304) ELT 305 and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayanti Foods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UAE origin. We find that Notification 73/2003-Cus. imposes anti-dumping duty on the import of vitrified and porcelain tiles other than vitrified industrial tiles originating or exported from UAE at a specific rate. The said notification indicates chapter heading as 6908. We find that the appellant himself has declared the chapter heading of the goods imported as 6908.90.90, hence the liability to pay anti-dumping duty arises. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant that the product which was imported was glazed porcelain tiles and not vitrified porcelain glazed tiles. The findings of the adjudicating authority on this point are very relevant and not out of context. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the adjudi....