9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods covered by three Shipping Bills, as well as against the penalty imposed on the appellants as per the order of the Commissioner of Customs. 2. The appellants had filed three Shipping Bills, all dated 27-6-2003, for export of dyed fabrics, declaring the value thereof as Rs. 97,75,500/- (FOB) and claiming proportionate benefit under the DEPB Scheme. The departmental officers swiftly cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the goods were not liable to be confiscated under Clause (ii) of Section 113 of the Customs Act inasmuch as they were not goods entered for exportation under any claim for drawback and had nothing to do with Section 75 of the Customs Act. It is further submitted that the goods were not prohibited goods. Even the impugned order does not hold the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In Prayag Exporters (supra) it was clause (d) of Section 113 that was invoked by the department for confiscation of the export goods in question. The Tribunal held that the goods in question were not prohibited for exportation and hence clause (ii) ibid was not applicable. Ld. Counsel has drawn an analogy between clause (d) and clause (ii) and has claimed support from the cited case law. 4. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Counsel, the goods in question were goods which were admittedly exported under the DEPB Scheme. The consistent view taken by the Tribunal in those cases is that, where export of the goods is not prohibited, the provisions of Section 113 are not applicable. The case law cited by ld. Counsel, apparently, supports his case. Moreover, the point raised by the Counsel with reference to Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
