9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. India Export House made an import of 7 containers of rough blocks of Italian Marble. The containers arrived at ICD, Pragati Maidan on 1-1-91, but nobody filed bill of entry in spite of notices issued to the importer repea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainable. 4. M/s. Miralka Enterprises filed the present appeal. 5. The contention of the appellants is that they are the exporter of the goods. As the importer had not got the goods cleared, they are the owners of the goods in question. The contention of the appellants is also that no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act had been issued to them as it requires that before con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also that the first confiscation order was passed in the year 1992, which was not challenged by the present appellants, but the importer filed the appeal and again in the year 1998, the adjudication order was passed in view of the remand order passed by the Tribunal. 7. In this case the present appeal is filed by the exporter of the goods. The exporter of the goods asked for setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds such as that they have valid import licence and also prayed for re-export of the goods on the ground that they had not received the relevant documents, hence they could not file Bill of Entry. It is admitted by the present appellants that they never asked for export of the goods. Therefore, the appellants are at liberty to approach the competent authority asking for re-export of the goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
