2011 (3) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal is preferred by the Exporter challenging the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting his request for re-exporting the goods, which is rejected by the importer. M/s. Vimalachal Fashions, Bangalore filed four bills of entry all dated 3-8-2007 seeking clearance of 53927 sq. mtrs. of "Textile pieces of goods or Dyed cotton processed fabrics" classified under Chapter sub-heading 5208 32 90 of Customs Tariff claiming benefit of duty free import under Duty free reple-nishment (DFRC) Scheme. On examination of the consignments, it transpired that the description of the goods was misdeclared and that the goods under import were 'cotton corduroy fabrics'. DFRC benefit was available to "Textile pieces of goods or Dyed cotton processed fabrics". H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the application for waiver of pre-deposit in the appeal filed by the importer, it was held that the consignments in respect of each bills of entry filed on 3-8-2007 have been confiscated and are in the custody of the department as there was duty in respect of past consignment, prima facie they cannot accept the claim of the Department as the authorities themselves had examined and were satisfied about the correctness of the description of the goods confiscated and allowed the clearance of the same. However, it was confirmed that the importer is liable to pay penalty in respect of goods covered by four bills of entry which have been liable to confiscation under Section 114-A of the Act. Further, considering the fact that the goods are in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, they held that the request of the appellant to re-export the consignment was rightly turned down by the Commissioner. Accordingly the appeal was rejected by order dated 23-9-2009. 5. This is a classic case of a court dealing with the same subject matter on two different dates without knowing what it held on the previous day. In the appeal filed by the importer where he made an application for waiver of pre-deposit, it is held prima facie they are satisfied that there is no collusion and the department has verified the consignment and collected the duty payable. There is not fraud. But in the same transaction while dealing with the appeal filed by the exporter a finding of fraud and collusion is recorded. It is difficult to susta....