9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. 2. Brief fact of the case are that the applicant had filed a shipping bill for the export of ladies knitted blouse and claimed the classification under CTH 6106 03A. On examination of the goods, it was observed by the adjudicating authority vide its OIO that the goods were rightly classifiable under CTH 6114 02 03A and not under CTH 6106 03A as claimed by the applicant. Further, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option was given to applicant to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who has, vide its above ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant could not file the application with the Government on time because the file pertaining to present case was unfortunately misplaced in their office. The reason adduced by the applicant is manifestly very vague, casual and cannot be considered as sufficient cause which prevented them from filing the instant revision application on time as keeping the documents was entirely within their control. The applicant has not explained which document was missing because of which revision application could not be filed in time. In fact, all the documents required for filing revision application could be easily obtained from the office of the original adjudicating authority or First appellate authority if these were genuinely misplaced. But no evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave the opening in the neckline nor the garment is of very low cut. Accordingly, the Dy. Commissioner has concluded that the exported garment are not blouses classifiable under CTH 6106 03A and are other garment's falling under CTH 6114. The sample of the exported goods was not produced before the first appellate authority and it is not produced even before the Government along with revision application or even during the personal hearing. Hence, it is not feasible for the Government at this juncture to accept the above claim of the applicant merely on the basis of the description of the exported garments given in the revision application. 6. In view of the above discussions, the revision application filed by M/s. J.S. Designer Ltd. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
