2000 (12) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 50,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the M/s. New Bombay Exports, Mumbai filed a Bill of Entry No. 82 dated 2-6-1998 for the clearance of 10 MTs of Cloves valued at Rs. 5,86,810/-. Based on intelligence that the cloves of other countries are entering India under the guise of Srilankan cloves (to avoid higher Customs duty), the consignment containing cloves packed in New double Gunny bags which were put inside another HDPE bag was seized under a mahazar dated 6-7-1998. Samples were drawn and sent to Spices Board for analysis and report. The Senior Scientist opined that the sample appears to be of Zanzibar origin and not of Srilankan O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the original authority's view that the Certificate of Origin was issued based on exporters declaration is a presumption. Also that the discrepancies in the packing list were not covered by Show Cause Notice/PH, hence there was no opportunity to clarify the same and that as the bill of entry was filed on the basis of the documents received from suppliers, they cannot be charged with mis-declaration and as such the order of confiscation and penalty is not maintainable 5. I have gone through the records of the case and the submissions of the appellant carefully. 6. The lower authority has held that the impugned goods are not of Srilankan origin based on the :- (a)     expert opinion of the Senior Scie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the lower authority's statement that there is no indication that the bag has been stitched more than once is not factually correct and the mouth of the double gunny bag is closed with one single machine stitching. 9. With regard to (c) and (d), the contention of the appellant is that there was a mix up of the packing list and the relevant invoice and they produced another packing list relating to this consignment. However, their contention that this issue was not there in the Show Cause Notice issued to them and not discussed during the personal hearing but the lower authority has chosen to give his findings on this, only in his order without giving them any opportunity, to explain this is factually correct. 10. Notwithstand....