2009 (10) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ption and other particulars of the goods were true. This declaration was given in compliance with Sub-Section (2) of Section 50 of the Customs Act. On examination, the goods were found to be dyed bed-sheets (made-ups). However, the exporter claimed the benefit of Serial No. 133 of the Input-Output Norms and accordingly they wanted to import sodium hydrosulphite (input) to the extent of 2% of the weight of the export goods. The department found that such benefit was not admissible to the party inasmuch as the export goods were not printed cotton made-ups but only dyed cotton made-ups. On this basis, they proposed to proceed against the exporter for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The exporter (appellant) waived show-caus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has come out with a suggestion that clause (h) and/or clause (i) could be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. Clause (h), as it existed at the time of exports, reads thus :- "Any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77". As we have already noted, the goods were neither dutiable nor prohibited. In any case, there is no finding by any of the lower authorities to the effect that the goods were either dutiable or prohibited. This would mean that application of clause (h) is out of question. Clause (i) was inserted with effect from 14-5-2003 with no retrospective effect. Obviou....