9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we take up the appeal. 2. The appellants had filed two bills of entry, both dated 30-1-2006, for clearance of 100% cotton fabrics on payment of duty at appropriate rate. The container was opened on 3-2-2006 and the goods examined, whereupon it was found that the goods imported by the appellants were corduroy fabrics, denim fabrics etc. attracting high rates of duties. The goods were seized under a mahazar and, subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the importer. These notices demanded duty on the goods at rates applicable to the above fabrics, proposed confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and proposed penalty on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. The party did not reply to the show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this connection, the adjudicating authority relied on a decision of the Tribunal also viz. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Guru Electronics Singapore (P) Ltd. [2004 (171) E.L.T. 215 (Tri.-Bang.)]. The view taken by the said authority has been upheld by the appellate authority. 4. Learned Counsel has today relied on the following judicial authorities in support of the plea for re-export of the goods :- (i) Siemens Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1999] (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.)]. (ii) Sankar Pandi v. Union of India [2002 (141) E.L.T. 635 (Mad.)]. (iii) M. V. Marketing Supplies v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai [2004 (178) E.L.T. 1034 (Tri.-Chennai)]. Learned SDR has reiterated the findings of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a letter from the supplier, which stated that the mistake of wrong shipment was on their part. Nowhere in the orders of the lower authorities is there any averment, observation or finding in the nature of discrediting the supplier's statement. It is also on record that, almost soon after examination of the consignments, the importer took up the matter with the supplier and also requested the department for permission to re-export the goods. In the circumstances, the request should have been favourably considered. This is not to say that there was no misdeciaration of goods by the importer. In the bills of entry the importer declared the goods as 100% cotton fabrics but physical examination of the goods revealed to the contra. What happened ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
