9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inished leather. They had doubts on the correctness of declaration in regard to Goat wax coated upper finished leather in view of the DGFT Public Notice No.21/2009 dated 01.12.2009 issued under the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation ) Act. Accordingly, samples were drawn and sent to Central Leather Research Institute for test. CLRI vide their report certified that the samples did not satisfy test of finished leather in view of absence of wax coat and finishing coat. Accordingly, Section 113 (d), 113 (II) of Customs Act, 1962 were invoked for confiscation, and penalty was sought to be imposed under Section 114 (II) as goods were alleged to have not satisfied the norms for Finished 2. In the original adjudication order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factors apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case. The relevant portion of the Tribunals decision in the case of M/s. Expos Leather Company Vs. CCE, Chennai, is reproduced as under:- "2. I have heard both sides. I find that there is no dispute that it is only the process of protective coating which was not carried out on the goods. I find that in similar circumstances in the case of M/s. Avanthi Leathers Ltd. - Final Order No.902/09 dated 20.07.2009, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside confiscation and imposing penalty was upheld after noting that no effort was made to export the goods in question and that the goods had been allowed to be taken back for the purpose of applying protective coating so as to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yalakshmi Leather's case also, the Tribunal noted the exporter's application for permission to take the goods back to the unit for rectifying the deficiencies. While considering the said claim, the Tribunal has specifically found that there was no deliberate attempt to conceal the deficiencies or to mis-declare the leather goods. The Tribunal therefore held therein that the dispute only related to the variations, inaccuracies, in mechanical operations or the difference between exports and traders with regard to grades. Ultimately, it was held that there was no effort to export prohibited goods. The Tribunal also took into account the considerable financial loss on account of taking the goods for re-processing and the delay in carrying out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
