9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Shri Ashok K. Arya, Member (T) Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President]. - The present appeal is filed by the Department against the order-in-appeal No. 639/2015, dated 17-6-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondents are having IEC No. 0491009194 filed Shipping Bill No. 6616334, dated 13-12-2014 through their Customs House Agent i.e. M/s. Vin Cargo Pvt., Ltd. No. 44 ACAAI Cargo Terminal, Old CWC Ware-house, Near Nangal Dairy, Old Gurgaon Road, New Delhi-110037, for export of Goat Upper Finished Leather with Finishing Coa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the goods were not in conformity to the required norms of finished leather. Therefore, the Exporter/CHA violated the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the Exporter vide their letter dated 20-1-2015 on behalf of exporter stated inter alia that goods were bought from Kanpur; that consignee requested for quick delivery of the goods; that due to delay in procurement of shipment, exporter filed the shipping bill in Delhi which is nearer to Kanpur; that during the transportation of the goods from Kanpur, the leather got moisture due to fluctuating weather conditions like chilling, rain and heavy fog; that the goods were the same as declared by the party and it cannot be termed as misdeclared goods even though the latest t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as satisfactory whereas in the second report dated 9-1-2015, the same has been found not satisfactory. Moreover, referring to the Public Notice No. 21/2009, the learned counsel for the assessee-respondents urged that the report dated 9-1-2015 is vague as it does not elaborate as to which operation out of those mentioned in the Public Notice is unsatisfactory. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel as in the entire order there is no finding that the impugned leather was not finished leather or was semi-finished leather and the only finding is that does not satisfy the norms and conditions for the type of finished leather as declared. There is no other evidence to suggest any contumacious conduct or deliberate misdeclaration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
