9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were either prohibited or forbidden or banned by any Foreign Trade Policies. Even if it is proved that it is a case of mis-declaration, the interest of the Revenue is always safeguarded by the undisputed fact of deposit of over Rs.2.37 crores by the appellant and in any case, there is no scope for re-valuation since the goods in question are not requested for clearance for home consumption, rather for re-export. The pleading of the appellant as to the acceptance by the foreign supplier on the wrong shipment as well as taking back the goods in question clearly shows the bona fides of the appellant, which are not at all doubted anywhere by the authorities below. There are no justifiable case made out by the authorities for not permittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sqm. @USD 0.12/sqm. USD 28,349.74/- 2. VC-2502 16.08.2022 422647.80 sqm. @USD 0.12/sqm. USD 50,717.74/- 3. VC-2506 19.08.2022 423187.20 @USD 0.12/sqm. USD 50,782.46/- The above goods when reached the Indian coast, the following bills-of-entry were filed for clearance: - S. No. Bill-of-Entry No. Date of filing 1. 2214121 29.08.2022 2. 2299510 04.09.2022 3. 2299525 04.09.2022 3.2 It appears that there was an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), who apparently examined the consignment drawing samples therefrom and forwarding the same for examination by Textiles Committee, Chennai. The said committee vide its report on various dates appears to have reported the imported goods as: - (i) Dyed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, vide their letter dated 19.04.2023. It also appears that the appellant brought to the notice of the officials as to the legal position for release of the seized goods as prescribed under Section 110(2) ibid., when no notice was issued under Section 124(a) to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. 3.7 There being no response from the DRI/Department, it appears that the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras and the Hon'ble High Court appears to have directed the Department to decide the application dated 19.04.2023 filed by the appellant for provisional release, within a period of 10 days. 3.8 Consequently, the adjudicating authority has passed an Order dated 20.05.2023 rejecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. 7.1 It is not the case of the Revenue that the imported goods were either prohibited or forbidden or banned by any Foreign Trade Policies. Even if it is proved that it is a case of mis-declaration, the interest of the Revenue is always safeguarded by the undisputed fact of deposit of over Rs.2.37 crores by the appellant and in any case, there is no scope for re-valuation since the goods in question are not requested for clearance for home consumption, rather for re-export. 8.2 Undoubtedly, any delay in provisional release would only be detrimental to the financial interests of the assessee since it is the assessee who would be liable to pay warehousing charges, demurrages, etc., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
