TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.2004, 0341/Imp/Cus/CBD/04 dated 30.8.04, 0342/Imp/Cus/CBD/04 dated 30.8.04, 0515/Imp/Cus/CBD/04 dated 3.11.04, 0521/Imp/Cus/CBD/04 dated 4.11.04 from Bangaldesh which was cleared from the Changrabandha LCS. During the course of assessment, a proper officer assessed the Bill of Entry as per the declaration filed by the importer. The importer filed the Bill of Entry for the imported goods under Tariff Sub-Heading No. 6201.99.90 availing the benefit of Notification No. 5/2004-Cus dated 8.1.2004 as amended. It was alleged that the Tariff No. 6201.99.90 attracted lower rate of duty and the consignment would have been rightly assessed to under the Tariff Heading 6204.33.00 which attracted the rate of duty below: Annexure-A (1st Part) Sl. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 34843/- 10403/- 321411/- 311008/- 6. 21957/- ($46.10) 22426/- 6530/- 188275/- 181745/- Total Rs.81453/- Rs.26,50,271/- Rs.25,68,818/- After the assessment and clearance of goods by the Customs, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant vide F. No. VIII(10)6/Cus./Adj./Audit/2005 dated 24.4.2007 asking them as to why the imported consignment should not have been re-assessed under Tariff 6201.33.00 instead of 6201.99.90. The items under Customs Tariff sub heading 6204.33.00 attracted duty @ 20% on the assessable value by extending the benefit of Notification No. 5/2004- Cus dated 8.1.2004 as amended by Notification No. 68/2004-Cus. dated 9.7.2004. The appellant along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iff Heading No. 6204.37.00 is wrong as the woven fabrics such as the jackets were made of other textile material. The said consignment was supported by the commercial invoice and the same was physical examination by the Custom officers. It was further submitted by the ld. Advocate that in the order-in-original, it is stated that the goods imported by the appellant vide the various bills of entries are meant for women's / girls'. In support of that the adjudicating authority has referred Chapter Note 8 of Chapter 62 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Note 8 of Chapter 62 reads as under: "Garments of this Chapter designed for left over right closure at the front shall be regarded as men's or boys' garments, and those designed for right o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y not sustainable. It was also stated by the ld. Advocate that the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order without following the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 129 D of the Customs Act. It is well settled principle that the order passed on the bills of entry is appealable order and therefore, without setting aside the same in review proceeding, the demand of duty and imposition of penalty is not permissible. In this regard, ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). The ld. Advocate further referred and relied upon the case of M/s Vittesse Export Import Vs. CC - 2008 (224) ELT 241 (Tri.-Mumbai). The Hon'ble Tribunal has held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The show cause notice was issued to the importer on 20.7.2007 alleging the suppression on the ground that the appellant has not declared the full description of the readymade garment. The contention of the appellant is that the invoice covering the imported goods were declared as the readymade garment, wind cheater for boys and girls under the appropriate classification. It was the opinion of the Revenue that the readymade garments i.e jacket and girls jacket are appropriately classifiable under sub heading 6204.33.00 of the tariff against the claim made by the appellant under 6201.99.900 of the Customs Tariff. The contention of the appellant is that the full description of goods by claiming and appropriate heading were duly declared in the....