2017 (10) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is an importer of various textile fabrics from China and other countries and in the course of business activities, they had imported a consignment of 100% Knitted Polyester Fabric of specification (220-240 GSM) 75 X 100 Denier from China. The petitioner imported quantity at the unit price of US$ 2, by Invoice dated 28.03.2017, the total invoice value is US$ 300.20. Based on this, the petitioner has filed Bill of Entry No.9317183 dated 16.04.2017 before the third respondent. The third respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish bond and Bank guarantee for provisional assessment of the subject goods. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2015. The Revenue has not preferred any further appeal against the rejection of the stay petition. The appeal filed by the Revenue is still pending. Thus, as on date, the value declared by the petitioner in respect of identical goods has been accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the order dated 01.05.2014 and such order has not been stayed by the CESTAT. Mere pendency of an appeal before the Appellate forum will not amount to stay of the order passed by the lower forum/authority. In the instant case, the valuation of the identical goods passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is binding on the third respondent. 4. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India....