2013 (10) TMI 847

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per the quality required by them. According to the appellant, the goods were returned to the factory on 13/5/11 and on 24/5/11, the buyer in the U.K. also cancelled the order. However, the intimation regarding the return of the rejected export consignment was given by the appellant to the department only on 10th October 2005. At this stage, the department asked the appellant to produce the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1, but according to the appellant, since the same had been lost, they were not in a position to produce the same and therefore they prepared fresh copies of the ARE-1. The goods lying in the factory, which according to the appellant, were same as the goods which had been cleared for export, were examined by the Range O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....art of the appellant was that though the intimation regarding return of the goods cleared for export was required to be given within 24 hours in terms of the Boards instructions, just for this lapse, the duty in respect of the goods cannot be demanded as the goods had been returned to the factory, that the goods available in the factory has been inspected by the Range Officer and he has observed that the description tallies with the description in the invoices, but still he has stated that the goods cannot be treated as same which had been cleared under ARE-1 No. 30/2011-2012, that from the records of the case, it is clear that the goods cleared under ARE-1 were returned to the factory and had not been illicitly diverted and hence the duty....