9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore the authorities seized the consignments. Further investigation revealed that 179 rolls out of 908 rolls of fabrics imported under cover of these Bills of Entry were misdeclared as knitted fabrics as against the actual woven fabrics . It also transpired that inputs imported by VINI earlier against the DEEC licence under cover of 16 Bills of Entry had also been similarly diverted violating the conditions of the licence. After due process of law, the Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the offences involved in import and diversion of fabrics under cover of the 19 Bills of Entry and passed the impugned order. The Commissioner found misdeclaration of description of 179 rolls of fabrics covered by the three Bills of Entry presented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity that the supply of woven fabrics had been erroneously made and not as per the related purchase order. The specified export product, namely, readymade garments would be manufactured and exported thereby fulfilling the licence condition and the condition for exemption under Notification No. 94/04-Cus. As there was no willful misdeclaration, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act was not justified. As regards the diversion of goods imported under 16 Bills of Entry earlier, the ld. Counsel drew our attention to his submission before the Commissioner of Customs that they had discharged 95% of the export obligation in respect of the imports and had produced bank realization certificates to substantiate the claim. The adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner that the fabrics imported under cover of 16 Bills of Entry had been diverted in violation of the licensing condition and the condition for exemption notification was incorrect. The finding of attempted diversion of fabrics seized and confiscated was also similarly incorrect. Ld. Counsel produced for our perusal shipping bills carrying endorsement of the advance licence No. 010325634 dated 11-4-05 in support of the claim that readymade garments manufactured using inputs imported earlier had been exported to meet the export obligation and that Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) was pending issue by the JDGFT. He also submitted a copy of the acknowledgement since obtained from the JDGFT for receipt of application for EODC. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Notification No. 94/2004-Cus. in respect of the imports covered by 19 Bills of Entry on the ground of diversion of inputs to unauthorized premises is prima facie not sustainable. As the DEEC licence allowed the appellants to import Textile General import of woven fabrics cannot be held to be not covered by the licence. Prima facie, it cannot also be categorically held that the imports of woven fabrics had taken place at the instance of the appellants and they had knowingly misdeclared the description of the goods covered by the three Bills of Entry. Therefore the penalty imposed on the appellants on that score is also apparently not sustainable. As the demand of duty of above Rs. 40 lakhs is prima facie found not sustainable, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
