9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the goods, as the same were not as per the quality required by them. According to the appellant, the goods were returned to the factory on 13/5/11 and on 24/5/11, the buyer in the U.K. also cancelled the order. However, the intimation regarding the return of the rejected export consignment was given by the appellant to the department only on 10th October 2005. At this stage, the department asked the appellant to produce the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1, but according to the appellant, since the same had been lost, they were not in a position to produce the same and therefore they prepared fresh copies of the ARE-1. The goods lying in the factory, which according to the appellant, were same as the goods which had been cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant was that though the intimation regarding return of the goods cleared for export was required to be given within 24 hours in terms of the Board's instructions, just for this lapse, the duty in respect of the goods can not be demanded as the goods had been returned to the factory, that the goods available in the factory has been inspected by the Range Officer and he has observed that the description tallies with the description in the invoices, but still he has stated that the goods cannot be treated as same which had been cleared under ARE-1 No. 30/2011-2012, that from the records of the case, it is clear that the goods cleared under ARE-1 were returned to the factory and had not been illicitly diverted and hence the duty demand i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13/5/11. There is no dispute that a consignment of the garments was available in the factory and the Jurisdictional Range Officer after inspecting the same has given a report that those goods are in accordance with the description given in the invoices, but still he has said that it cannot be proved that the goods available in the factory are the same as the goods cleared under ARE-1 No. 30/2011-2012 dated 10/5/11. While it is true that the appellant did not intimate the return of the goods within 24 hours, the fact remains that they have produced Transport company's GR and as such no inquiry has been conducted with the transporter. Moreover, there was a consignment of Kaftans available in the factory which appeared to be covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
