9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. In its order of 13-12-1995, this Tribunal had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva in which he had held that goods described as teak flooring panels could not be exported and ordered their confiscation. This Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner to consider whether the goods would fall within the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logs out of which the timber was made were imported through Bombay port, he has held that the export will also have to be effected through that port. He accordingly gave liberty to the appellant to remove the goods from Nhava Sheva and export them to Bombay, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Public Notice. 3. In the order, the Commissioner has noted that the goods now declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waiver of written notice which the appellant accepted in those proceedings therefore could not apply to the present proceedings. There is no finding in the order of the Commissioner that notice was issued in writing or that it was waived. The order of confiscation therefore has been passed without giving notice and would not be sustainable. 6. Secondly, even if notice had been given the goods wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter should make a declaration certifying the correctness of the information furnished on the shipping bill. Even if the description of the goods initially made was wrong, the fact of misdeclaration would not render the goods covered by the shipping bill liable to confiscation since, going by either description, the export of the goods is not prohibited. Confiscation of the goods on this score is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
