9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Member And Shri C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Shri Brijesh Pathak, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.J. Sahoo, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: D.N. Panda Appellant says that when the export consignments was alleged to be overvalued and quantity thereof was alleged to be lower than that was declared in shipping bill as well market enquiry was done to determine the value of the export, appellant is entitled to get such report for rebuttal. So also the statement of CHA and Shri Sunil Kurkute having been used against the appellant, they are to be cross examined. 2. Revenue says that when physical verification of the container was made that revealed that value of export consignment declared was higher which was prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04. As per ARE-1, invoices and S/Bills the goods declared as Dyed and printed fabric matter out from 100% filament yarn. On physical examination, the representative samples of fabric were drawn under panchanama and sent to Customs Laboratory/JNCH for testing. As per test report dated 30.12.2004, the fabric was found to be texturised polyester of GSM ranging in between 28 to 35.4 as against declared/required 180 GSM. Thus the quantity and technical characteristics of the export goods has been misdeclared. (b) Quantity: - The exporter has declared net weight of the fabric as 33552 kgs under the said 4 shipping bills, but on physical examination had the net weight found to be 8738 kgs, so the total length of the fabric as per physical wei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also revealed certain aspects. 7. Looking into the result of investigation, oral evidence, result of the physical inventory, laboratory test report, and outcome of market enquiry which revealed that there was admitted deception of quantity of polyester fabrics and mis-declaration of value as well as quantity by the appellant, Appellant says that there was no cross-examination of Shri Sunil Kurkute and CHA allowed. Appellant did not dispute any of the finding of adjudicating authority. They only challenge that market enquiry report was not confronted and cross-examination was not allowed. 8. Appellant further submitted that ARE-1 document is not disputed. That has no significance in law when appellant failed to controvert physical inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
