9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions: "5.We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. As is evident from the second test report of CLRI dt. 27.12.2010 reproduced above, the sample was tested by CLRI to see if it matches the description in the shipping bill. In the first test report, it was tested on the specifications for "Nubuck Leather of cows or buffaloes" while the description of the goods by the appellant was "Sheep Nubuck leather". The second sample was ordered to be tested which was tested and it was again confirmed that it is not Nubuck Leather at all as the process of snuffing essential for making nubuck leather has not been undertaken. From the above, it is clear that there was misdeclaration of the goods in the shipping bill by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export in violation of the prohibtions under Foreign Trade Policy or any other law. We, therefore, find that the argument of the Ld. counsel that their goods were not prohibited from export under Foreign Trade Policy and the Public Notice issued therein does not come to their rescue because there is no confiscation on this count at all. The only confiscation was on the ground that the appellant has described the goods wrongly. We find that the second test report confirms that the goods were not which were described in the shipping bill. For this reason, we find that confiscation of the goods under Section 113 and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 125 in lieu of confiscation (as the goods have already been exported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LRI produced before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the Exporter gave a revised classification of the goods in question as 'Softy Upper Leather'. He submitted that in view of the revised classification given before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who permitted the obtaining of such fresh CLRI Report to the Assessee/Exporter, the goods in question should not be treated as exported upon a misdeclaration and therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in imposing the redemption fine and export duty in question. 4.Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, we are of the opinion that such ex-post facto obtaining of a fresh Report by the Assessee/Exporter, is of no relevance, because the fact remains that on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
