9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are as under :- 2. The appellants are manufacturers and exporters of bicycle parts. They filed Shipping Bill dated 12-10-2000 for the export of bicycle parts namely, Handle Stem and Seat Stay under a claim of drawback. The FOB value of Seat Stay (1,26,000 pieces) was declared in the Shipping Bill as Rs. 10,01,170.80 and a total drawback of duty of Rs. 3,84,300 was claimed thereon. On examinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sympathetic consideration of their case, in their letter dated 6-11-2000 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. In that letter, the appellants admitted that, due to a mistake on the part of their packing labourers, the Seat fittings (which were meant for some other foreign buyers) happened to be packed, instead of Seat Stay, for purpose of export under the above Shipping Bill. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, that the Commissioner did not consider the appellant s request for permission to amend the Shipping Bill or alternatively to withdraw the entire lot, that since the goods were not liable to confiscation in terms of the aforesaid provisions of Section 113 of the Act, there was no reason for imposition of any penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Act and that, at any rate, the qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and prayed for rejecting the appeal. 5. I have carefully examined the submissions. It is not disputed that the appellants mis-declared Seat Fittings as Seat Stay in their Shipping Bill. But the question before me is whether such mis-declaration would render the goods liable to confiscation in terms of clauses (h) and (i) of Section 113 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prohibited that the Commissioner held them liable to confiscation under Section 113 (h) and (i). It is further noted that the appellants had requested the Customs authorities to permit them either to amend the Shipping Bill or to withdraw the entire lot. The adjudicating authority did not entertain this request, eithe 6. In the light of the findings recorded above, I observe that this is a fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
