9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (J)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No. 4/03 dtd. 4-7-2003 denying the prayer of the appellant to grant the benefit of re-export. It is the contention of the appellant that the ownership of the goods viz, peripherals of computers and dyes, which had been supplied to M/s. National Trading Corporation had not been passed on to them. They had requested the original authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dugar [1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] and that of the Tribunal in the case of Unisindo Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad [2003 (153) E.L.T. 81 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri R. Ganesh filed the written submission and also the judgments relied by him and prayed for an order directing the authorities to re export the same. 3. Ld. SDR Shri P.M. Saleem submitted that in the case of Sampat Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the order of confiscation done by the customs authorities under provisions of Sec. 111(o) and 111(d) of the Customs Act and of the goods having been confiscated the supplier does not have a right to ask for re-export. He submits that same view was expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Peer Chemicals and Metallurgy (P) Ltd v. CC, Chennai [2002 (145) E.L.T. 96 (Tri. Chennai)]. He pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and (d) of the Customs Act. The goods require licence and as they have violated several provisions of the Customs Act, the goods were confiscated. In a situation where the goods are absolutely confiscated for violation of Customs Act for non-production of licence and for undervaluation then in such a situation the Apex Court judgment in the case of Grand Prime Ltd. (supra) and that of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
