1998 (1) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appellant imported a consignment described as spare parts of digital display and puncher device in June, 1988 and cleared it on payment of duty on the assessable value arrived on the basis of the declared invoice value plus freight and insurance charges. It subsequently filed a claim for refund of part of the duty paid on the ground that the goods were reim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hearing and attributed to the appellant as lapse on the part of their agent Embarkation Headquarters. He dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. It is contended by the appellant that the certificate issued by the DGTD and the invoice for the reimported goods bear the same serial number and thus show that it is the same goods which were re-exported which have been imported and the benefit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igures in the import invoice. The shipping bill does not contain any serial number. The invoice dated 23rd September, 1985 which is stated to be for the original importation of the goods in question also does not contain any serial number. The sole fact that the certificate of the DGTD mentioned serial number therefore cannot be preferred against the other evidence and said to constitute evidence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X