9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s inspected the goods and certificate was issued by Denmark, who is the head office – held that certificate issued by Head office or branch office, will not make any difference – benefit cannot be denied - C/1367/2006 - A/1850/2007-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 13-7-2007 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Samir Chitkara, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri P.V. Sheth, Advocate, for the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out by Public Notice No.51/2004-09, dt.31.1.05. The same was valid for goods shipped or arrived in India prior to 25.10.04 and awaiting clearance on 31.10.05. This amendment is not applicable to the appellant as the goods in this case were shipped on 03.06.05. 12. In the instant case, the appellant has not disputed that they had to produce the pre-shipment inspection certificate from speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect, it should have been brought on record by the Adjudicating Authority. A conclusion drawn on presumption and assumption has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 13. I, therefore, hold the Certificate of inspection produced by the appellant from M/s Baltic Control Aarhus, Denmark was a valid certificate as per the provisions of the Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) of the Export Import Polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
