9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. Both the appeals are by the Revenue against the same Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Accordingly both were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The material facts relevant for disposing of this appeal are that the respondents filed a drawback shipping bill for the export of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals with the following observations :- Appellants were heard. Facts of the case clearly indicate that the goods exported were not prohibited for export. This has been accepted by the lower authority. The impugned order imposing redemption fine and penalty is based on the conclusion of intention to misdeclare. There is no finding as to how this conclusion was arrived at. Shipping Bill clearly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner. Hence the two appeals. 4. On perusal of the record of the case and considering the submissions made by both sides, we are left with little doubt that provisions of Section 113(i) are clearly attracted in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Clause (i) of Section 113 reads as under : Any dutiable or prohibited goods [or goods enter for exportation under claim for drawback] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods under report. They clearly did not. Goods, declared as new for claiming drawback was found to old goods not eligible for drawback. We, therefore, allow Appeal No. E/977/97 Mum. of the Revenue and set aside the order of the Commissioner insofar as it relates to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the exporting company. The Order-in-Original is restored to this exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
