2025 (6) TMI 1975

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the appellant Shri D S Maan, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: C J MATHEW M/s Unilab Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd is before us against order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II which upheld the order of the original authority in relation to bill of entry no. 7764940//27.08.2012 for the import of 'farmin DM' from Philippine and in which t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this error having been brought to the notice at the time of assessment of bill of entries impugned in these proceedings, had made good differential duty of Rs. 6,21,404, and interest thereof amounting to Rs. 51,245, on 5th October 2012. On the single bill of entry pending before the customs authorities, proceedings were initiated for mis-declaration with consequent detriments which are in appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... other aspect impacting the assessment at the correct rate of duty is in evidence; and that it is not the case of the customs authorities that the goods were either from a country other than Philippine or that it had been claimed to be from one of the countries entitled for the lower rate of duty. 3. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative. 4. We have already noted that the detriment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mporter with respect to the impugned transaction. It is true that the respondent did not discharge the anti-dumping duty liability. The customs authorities also validated the transaction without noticing the mistake committed by the importer and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent alone was negligent and not the department. Further, no goods have been seized or confiscated. The law do....