9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the impugned order whereby 20 consignments of the appellants were confiscated and their claim for ownership was also disallowed by the Commissioner of Customs and imposed the penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that on 5-3-08 certain consignments of fabric were seized from the godown of Inland Road Transport at Kolkata on the ground that the same were smuggle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rified by the Revenue through Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi and as per the verification record, the invoices produced by the appellant are genuine. The contention is that the claim of the appellant were not accepted by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that there is minor discrepancy in the test report and the description in the bills of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and the present appellant produced invoices showing the purchase of the goods. It is also submitted that the thickness of the goods imported by the importer as per bills of entry is different from the thickness of the consignments in question as per the test report in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order is rightly passed. 6. We find that in this case PVC quoted fabric is ordered to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to be genuine. The consignment notes were available on 7-3-08 are evident from the inventory made in respect of seized goods by the Revenue officers. The evidence collected from the transport company also shows that goods were booked in the name of the appellant as the consignment notes produced by the transporter. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order, confiscating the goods and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
