9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. The Appellant filed a shipping bill for export of 24,000 pairs of synthetic footwear under value based advance licence under D.E.E.C. scheme. The f.o.b. value declared was Rs. 51,00,450/-. A detailed examination of the consignment revealed that 1,195 pairs of synthetic footwear were found short of the declared quantity. On weighment it was observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner confiscated the goods. The goods were however not available for confiscation as they were allowed to be exported provisionally. He, therefore, ordered that the export should not be considered as one under D.E.E.C. Licence. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the proprietor of the exporting firm. Hence the appeal. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The first issue for consideration is wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter failed to discharge this burden. Further we also observe that the exporter did not declare the correct quantity of the goods under export. Had the department not examined the goods it would not have found out the fact of under statement of quantity. The explanation of the exporter in this regard is unsatisfactory. In all 1,195 pairs were found short in the export consignment. The goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
