2017 (10) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dvocate, for appellant Ms. P. Vinita Shekhar, Jt. Commr (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: D.N. Panda Appellant says that the goods came were as described in the Bills of Entry Page 18 of the appeal folder, shows that the goods imported were 'Video Door Phone' and those were of Chinese origin. According to appellant, learned authority below mis-classified the goods although those were rea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. 4. According to Revenue, the goods as above, were nothing but the components and parts of the specific goods and had the character to be classified as such either called as 'Video Door Phone' or 'Bell', which makes no difference to law. Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 makes clear that the goods entering into India having essential character of a specific goods whether in assembled....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plete goods and assembly of 3 components, was to result in complete goods of a description appearing in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which was subject to RSP valuation. Mis-declaration of description as well as value (RSP) was made. Learned authority rightly classified the goods under the CTH 8517 which is not challenged by the appellant. Accordingly that is upheld. 8. Appellant was not a manufactu....