9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 754 cartons of polyester yarn carted by the petitioners under seven shipping bills for exports. At that stage, samples were drawn. After drawing samples, several statements of various functionaries of the petitioners came to be recorded. On the basis of the said statement, a show cause notice alleging misdeclaration with regard to the goods came to be issued. By an order in adjudication passed on 20th December 1985, the goods came to be confiscated under section 113(i) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also imposed on the petitioners. This order has been confirmed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order. All the authorities below found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sitting in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the said authorities. Secondly, the Adjudicating Authorities as well as the Appellate Authorities have taken into account the statements of various persons which were recorded at the time of inspection of the goods. The said statements clearly indicate that even according to the assessee, the said yarn was manufactured from the waste fibre. In particular, our attention has been invited to the statement of Shri S.S. Gehlawat, Spinning Manager. It is in the nature of admission. The said statement clearly recites that some waste fibre was used for manufacturing the yarns. Hence, we do not find merit in the contention that the yarn was not made from waste fibre. In any event, it cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a case of misdeclaration, then certainly Section 113(i) of the Customs Act would stand attracted. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Badri Prasad Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Delhi reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 624 (Tribunal) and also the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Shilpi Exports v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 302 (Tribunal) have no application whatsoever to the facts of the case. In the case of Badri Prasad (supra) on facts it was found that M/s. Badri Prasad Sons Pvt. Ltd. filed a shipping bill at the Indira Gandhi International Airport for export of hosiery fabrics with the gross weight of 6800 kgs. Subsequent to the ship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
