2021 (12) TMI 855

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h on considering all the submissions of the appellants. All aspects of decision on merits of the case by the original authority are kept open.' is under challenge. 2. Though the matter has travelled on two occasions to the first appellate authority, it was only the latest order of remand that has caused grievance to the appellant; on the first occasion, following the cavil of the appellant, it was ordered that the test report would have to be validated by cross-examination of the signatories of the said report. In the remanded proceedings, the original authority did permit the cross-examination, as directed, before going on to reject the claim for exemption from basic customs duty of Rs. 4,39,940/- and levying antidumping duty of Rs. 33,87,904 as imposed under notification no 51/2012-Cus (ADD) dated 3rd December 2012 at serial no. 2. Besides confiscating the impugned goods valued at Rs. 48,26,024/- under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962, with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and imposing penalty of Rs. 3,83,784/- on the appellant herein, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the proprietor of the importing entity under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Alpha Plus, to disallow claim for preferential rate of duty and, on the conclusion that the goods were not only liable to standard rate of duty owing to ineligibility of the re-determined description of the goods but also, from its origins in the Peoples' Republic of China, liable to anti-dumping duty. As opportunity for cross-examination had not been afforded, the first appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The reiteration of the detriments in the second round was challenged before the first appellate authority and it was thereon that re-test was ordered in view of the deficiency in the test process. 6. According to Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant, the challenge to the impugned order of remand is primarily to retrieve the bad from being made worse. Pointing out that the imported plates had limited life, he argued that, as the test process had been discredited in the impugned order, the declaration should be accepted and goods released to appellant. The comparison of the two reports undertaken by the original authority thus '11. Based on the above discussion it is clear that the TR issued by M/s Alpha Plus which is a private party and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... retrieved from the cell phone of the importer's husband Mr Sushil Nalage in his presence during the course of recording of his statement. Therefore the case laws as referred by the importer in the case of Bullion and Jewellers Association V/s UOI reported as 2016(335)E.L.T 639(Del.) and of Mahadev Metalinks Pvt Ltd V/s UOI as reported in 2016(331) E.L.T 424 (A.P) are not squarely applicable in this instant case. Moreover, the export related documents also does not through light about the fact that they have been manufactured and removed from the factory of M/s Digital Plates (M) SDN BHD in Malaysia. Based on the above findings if the procedure with regard to the rejection of country of origion certificate has not been followed then the said Act does not absolve the importer from the mis-declaration which they did so. As the good are imported from the China therefore the same are not eligible for the benefit of the claimed exemption Notfn No; 46/2011 Sr. No: 1182(1) Dt 1.0.2018 and consequently based on the finding of the TR and the cross examination the goods which arc found mis-declared correctly attracts ADD under Notfn No: 51/2012 Cus (ADD) Dt 3.12.2012 8.No: 2.' was assa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iated these for the first time was tantamount to proceeding against them behind their back. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Bullion and Jewellers Association v. Union of Indi [2016 (335) ELT 639 (Del)] and in Mahadev Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ 2016 (331) ELT 424 (AP)]. On the issue of the finding that the 'certificate of origin' was unacceptable, the decision of the Tribunal in Manishanand Creation v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva [2012 (276) ELT 513 (Tri. -Mumbai])] was cited. 9. According to Learned Authorized Representative, the original authority had framed three issues for consideration and had given detailed findings on each of them. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] in support of the contention that an ambiguity in the exemption notification does not, by default, favour the importer. He contends that the direction issued by the first appellate authority is implementable and that it is physically, and logically, possible to conduct the re-test. He also contends that, on perusal of the finding of the Direct....