9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of Notification No. 53/97 was claimed subject to the fulfilment of conditions stipulated thereunder, as eligible to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (hereinafter referred to as E.O.U.). 2. Subsequently, it appears that, in view of the interference of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata, the importer requested for merit assessment subject to payment of duty. The goods were examined and the representative samples were drawn and tested. The Test Report revealed that the goods are woven fabrics and are wholly made of multifilament yarn of Polymide (Nylon) and larger portion of the goods were reported to be entirely made of multifilament yarn of Nylon and coated on one surface with polymeric material (Polyurethane and coatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though the importer had claimed to be a E.O.U., but it does not have necessary infrastructure to manufacture the final product out of the imported material sought to be cleared and the D.R.I. investigation revealed that the importer clandestinely sold the duty free imported raw materials cleared earlier. Therefore, the Commissioner concluded that it could not be ruled out that the same intention was not present in this case also, and accordingly, held that it was only the constant vigilant watch over the import of consignments which resulted in the manufacturers having opted for domestic clearance on payment of duty and therefore, held that the present imports were meant for disposal in the domestic market without payment of duty. He also l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssumed that they were acting to eventually clandestinely remove the goods for domestic purposes and not utilising them in their Bonded Warehouse of an E.O.U. which they claimed to be; (b) that the Commissioner s findings are a presumption based on their past clearance which does not necessarily mean and indicate that if they have sold the goods cleared by them in the past, they should be considered to be penalised for the present imports. Confiscation on such assumptions cannot be upheld; (c) that the Commissioner has raised the value and the appellants have submitted before us and contested that the copies of comparitive goods invoice based on which values were raised, were not provided to them. The Revenue strongly conteste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
