9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, claim of appellant that this consignment was re-imported without accompanying documents due to oversight is not plausible claim because only part of exported goods were brought back – In view of these facts there is no doubt that there has been mis-declaration – Diamonds being very sensitive commodity its trading of may not have duty implication but can have other implications of money transactions – No reason to disagree with findings of Commissioner confiscating goods and imposition of redemption fine – Decided against Assesse. - C/663 and 868/2012-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/1376-1377/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 17-10-2014 - Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (T) Shri Aqueel Sheerazi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.D. Joshi, Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants requested, on 21-11-2011, for amendment in Bill of Entry which was denied. The order of confiscation of the goods and redemption fine for re-export followed. 5. I have considered the facts and the submissions. It has been brought out in the grounds of appeal that these consignments were reimported on rejection by the customers in US. The packets containing 299.33 were stated to have been exported consignment against invoice No. 1111003. But actually consignment of 1098.80 carats was exported against invoice No. 1111003. Therefore, the claim of appellant that this consignment was re-imported without accompanying documents due to oversight is not a plausible claim. Because only a part of the exported goods were brought back. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confiscation of the goods and the imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 4 lakhs. 6. I find that the exporter in a letter to the appellants admitted that they had forgotten to include the 299.33 carats said to be related to the export invoice SA/1111003, dated 3-11-2011, in the airway bill under which consignment of 485.37 carats was re-imported. The appellants are a reputed company and repeatedly export and re-import diamond consignments. During the year 2011-12, out of the 68 orders placed by the same supplier, only 50 consignments were exported. In all 31 orders were cancelled and export consignments returned to the appellants prior to the consignments in dispute. There is no one to one co-relation with the consignments (consignme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
