9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representative. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellant is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton dyed processed fabrics and corduroy material and is registered under the laws of the Republic of China. 5. M/s. Vimlachal Fashions, Bangalore approached the appellant for supply of dyed cotton fabrics. The appellant as per the order of the Company based in Bangalore sent the consignment. However, later when the consignments were received in India, M/s. Vimlachal fashions filed the bill of entry. The duty was also paid. When the consignment was inspected, it was found that the goods were not processed cotton fabrics but they were corduroy. They would not be entitled for the benefit of the notification claimed by the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Bangalore (received on 8-8-07) requesting permission for re-export of cotton corduroy fabrics imported by you vide Bills of Entry No. 151155, 151156. 151157 and 151158 all dated 3-8-07 on the grounds that your supplier has wrongly dispatched cotton corduroy fabric by mistake instead of dispatching dyed processed cotton fabric as declared by you in the said Bills of Entry. It may be noted that this fax is obviously an afterthought as the fact of mis-declaration of said goods was already in the knowledge of the Department prior to your request. Hence, your request for permission to re export the fabrics is hereby rejected. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (A.K. KAUSHAL) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Copy to M/s. Vimalachal Fashion, No. 113, Sar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to any fraudulent plan hatched or sought to be implemented. They submitted that M/s. Vimlachal Fashions filed Bill of Entry based on the documents sent by the supplier. They were not aware of the content of the goods till the examination. Therefore M/s. Vimlachal Fashions were a not party to any conspiracy. There is a genuine mistake. Therefore it was submitted that the respondent erred in rejecting the request of the supplier for permission to re-export the goods. 6. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that the appeal has been filed by the supplier of the goods at China. The importer is one M/s. Vimlachal Fashion Bangalore. The revenue officers have investigated the matter and it is found that the Indian importer hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation further revealed that Shri Popatlal Mohanlal Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Vimlachal Fashions is a resident of Mumbai and having all his business activity at Mumbai, Maharashtra. However he has obtained an Import Export Code, License from DGFT, Bangalore by providing a local address after obtaining a residence at No. 231, Hoody, Mahadevapura, Bangalore on rent. Verification revealed that the premises has no telephonic land line or Fax connection. The owner of the residence stated that though Mr Popatlal had taken the premises on rent from January 2006, the agreement was terminated in December 2006 itself. The importer is using the address for only getting postal communication and collecting the same. Despite vacating the said premises it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
