2017 (1) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant filed Bill of Entry No.12656 dt. 18.11.2002 for clearance of 42 sets of "Tesa Electronic Door Locks". The appellant claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 44/2002. During the examination of the goods on second check basis it was found that goods imported are not as per description mentioned in the Bill of Entry, instead they are found to be 20 pieces of "Tesa Guest Room Safes". As per the appellant, the wrong shipment has occurred because of mistake. EPCG benefit was denied to the imported goods and the Bill of Entry has been assessed at the merit rate of duty i.e. 30% + 16% + 4%. The said order of the adjudicating authority was reviewed and as per the ground of review it is a clear case of mis-declaration requiring the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant, this has been admitted by the shipping agent. Therefore from this fact, it is clear that mis-declaration cannot be attributed to the appellant. Considering this fact, the adjudicating authority has adjudicated the bill of entry by reassessing the same. Therefore the grounds taken by the department in review proceeding before the Commissioner (Appeals) has no legs to stand. 4. Shri D.K. Sinha, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find from the original adjudication order that the adjudicating authority given a categorical finding considering the facts of the case the findings of the ....