9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide impugned Bill of Entry - As such, Government observes that the identity of the goods re-exported is not established as the same goods which were imported goods vide said Bill of Entry - Therefore, the Drawback claim was rightly rejected by the lower authorities. - 373/213/DBK/2009-RA-CUS - 36/2011-Cus. - Dated:- 22-2-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri K.S. Rangarajan, Manager, for the Assessee. [Order]. This Revision Application is filed by M/s. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. No. 56, Industrial Area, Nanjangud, Mysore against the Order-in-Appeal No. 986/2009 dated 4-9-2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Chennai with respect of Order-in-Original No. Nil dated 23-12-2004 issued from F.No. S2/2003/09/5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the applicant had not disclosed in any of their correspondence that goods imported was Ammonium Chloride and not Erythromycin Base. It is submitted that the applicant had vide its letter dated 25-4-2003 clearly informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo that the material imported is comparable with the spectrum of Ammonium chloride. It was also informed that since wrong material was supplied, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were rejected and respondent-exported for the very fact that on inspection and testing the goods were found to be different from what was claimed to have been supplied by the supplier in the shipping documents based on which the bill of entry was filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the fact that the goods imported were in fact Ammonium Chloride and the same goods were respondent-exported since these goods were wrongly supplied by the supplier. 4.5 That all the export documents viz. shipping bill, export invoice, packing list, etc. contain the specific details of the imported material i.e. details of bill of entry under which they were imported, details of supplier invoice, etc. and the fact that the same goods were rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to suggest that 191.84 Kgs of goods as having description other than the declared description of Erythromycin Base . The applicant importer has placed reliance on supplier letter dated 3-3-2003 in favour of their claim. However, perusal of the said letter no where suggests that the goods imported by the Applicant was Amonium chloride and not Erythromycin Base Further, nothing has been brought on the record by the Appellant that in their correspondence with their supplier, there is any mention to the effect that the imported goods are Ammonium Chloride and not Erythromycin Base . As much the case law cited by the applicant [CC v. Madura Coats, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 270] is not applicable in this case since in the said case their was a suf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
