9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-57/93-Lic. 599/93-BCH, dated 13-10-1993 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the respondent reversing the findings of the Deputy Collector who by his order dated 4-2-1993 had confiscated the rough diamonds imported by the respondent for violation of Section 111(m) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e different set of any documents showing different state of facts so that customs authority be known. The bill of entry showed the quantity as 13055.40 carats. The customs authorities issued a show cause notice dated 23-12-1992 charging the respondent for violation of Section 111(m) inasmuch as the declared quantity was 13055.40 carats whereas the goods actually arrived showed only 6760 carats. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal by the department. 3. The learned DR arguing on behalf of the department states that in the entire set of facts it was pertinent to note that the importer in fact had two sets of documents at the time of filing of bill of entry. Therefore having in possession of two sets of documents they had not filed the correct declaration in respect of the quantity of the goods imported t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment that Antwerp Diamantbank n.v. was not the bankers for the actual importers. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. The finding given by the Collector (Appeals), in my view, cannot be questioned. It is true that there has been a mis-declaration, viz, that what was contained in the invoice is different from what is the weight of the goods imported. The splitting up of the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
