TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Proprietrix (second appellant) are the appellants herein. 2. The relevant facts are that pursuant to intelligence that the first appellant had imported "fibre glass measuring tapes," which are chargeable to anti-dumping duty if imported from China, in terms of Notification No.49/2009-Cus. dated 15.05.2009, by declaring them as "tailor tapes", DRI commenced investigation in the course of which, the business premises of the first appellant were searched, measuring tapes seized and statements were recorded from the second appellant. 3. Pursuant to such investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the importer has deliberately suppressed complete and actual description of the goods in respect of four bills of entry m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed which included the goods related to bill of entry no.600974/18.08.2010 that was seized, which were valued at Rs.8,84,878/-, with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Adjudicating Authority also ordered for payment of anti-dumping duty of Rs.47,36,512/- and imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh on the importer and Rs.50,000/- on Shri Vivek Kumar Jain. 5. Aggrieved by the Order in Original, the appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals, interalia pleading that the goods were imported during the period September 2009 to August 2010 and were examined by the customs officers who had also not proposed any levy of ADD. It was contended that the goods were therefore cleared on payment of duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tapes in India, including M/s. Freemans Measures (P) Ltd. referred in the Order in Original. The officers had also enhanced the value at the time of assessment and thus were aware, pursuant to their examination, of the nature of the imported goods. D. The appellant had also classified the goods under CTH 90178010 which pertain to "measuring rods and tapes and divided scales" and therefore the charge of mis-declaration or suppression does not hold good. The appellant places reliance on the decisions in CC and CE, Ex., Kanpur vs. Jas International, 2011 (272) E.L.T. 282 (Tribunal, Delhi), Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C), Zenith Rubber and Plastic Wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s International, 2011 (272) E.L.T. 282 (Tri. - Delhi). 7. Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the respondent, reiterated the findings of the Appellate Authority. Ld. Authorised representative placed reliance on the decisions in Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1991 (56) ELT 705 (MAD) and final order no.40590 /2025 dated 06.06.2025 passed in Customs appeal no.42629 of 2014 in the case of Shanti Rayons India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. 8. Heard both sides. Perused the appeal records and the case laws submitted as relied upon. 9. We find that the imports have taken place from September 2009 to August 2010 and the show cause notice was issued in July 2011. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or is it the case of the Department that the proper officer had acquiesced and connived with the importer. 11. When the dispute is one of classification, once the assessee had declared the description of the goods imported correctly as per the supporting documents, it was the duty of the assessing officer to correctly assess the goods. It cannot be gainsaid that classification of the goods, along with valuation and import policy, are crucial aspects of assessment which the proper officer is entrusted with. When the proper officer has chosen to clear the goods on examination and has given out of charge it can only mean that the officer has satisfied himself that the goods so cleared have been assessed to the correct duties leviable. The app....