2008 (3) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8, 320, 326, 358, 328, 329, 331, 332, and 337/2001/MAS Shri M. Balagopal, Shri A. K. Jayaraj, M. Abdul Nazeer, S. Murugappan, S. Giridharan, Advocates, for the Appellants. Shri M. K. A. K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per P. Karthikeyan Member (T)]- The captioned appeals are directed against similar orders involving similar transactions. Issue involved is the same in all orders. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere imposed as the goods were found liable for confiscation under section 113 (d) (i) and (f) and had been exported. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case, we find that in all cases, the examination report and let export order of the competent officers of customs were made on or before 31.12.1998.  Bills of Lading were also issued on the same date.  .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oreover, it is on record that sale proceeds against the exports were received. Therefore the finding of the Commissioner that the impugned goods had not been exported and drawback claimed was not admissible or that they were liable for confiscation cannot be sustained. Consequently penalties ordered are also liable to be set aside. This was also our finding and decision in Final Order No. 857, 858 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X