TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of various sizes with brand names NIKE & ADIDAS and glimmer stick/ eye liner for eyes / lips (assorted). In respect of the eye liners/ eye brow pencils the lower adjudicating authority has held that the classification by the appellants under CTH 96099090 under the self assessment is not right and that CTH 33042000 under which the CVD is leviable on MRP basis, is appropriate. It was also found that a part of the consignment. viz. 5760 pieces of eye liners were branded and o Germany origin whereas the appellants declared them to be of Chinese origin. The LAA rejected the declared value of the goods due to the mis declaration and redetermined the value at Rs. 86,630/- in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 . The CVD was qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the shoes bearing Adidas brand valued at Rs. 7,00541/- the LAA has ordered for its disposal as per the provision of Rule 11 of the IPR Enforcement Rule, 2007. He has allowed redemption of shoes bearing the brand name Nike valued at Rs. 6,52,243/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 19962 on a payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 2,50,000/- were imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1926 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively." 3. The above order was challenged by the importer before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeal. 4. With this b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 7. Against this order, department preferred Review Petition No. 58/2015 and the respondent herein also preferred a Contempt Petition No. 844/2015 in the same matter. Vide a common order dated 8.10.2015, both the petitions were disposed by the Hon'ble High Court inter alia with the following directions:- "13. As regards the review, though there is no apparent error on record since the order does not suffer from any infirmity, however, taking note of the fact that it has been passed solely with the observation that there was no appeal preferred by the department on the date....