2007 (11) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er was opened on 3-2-2006 and the goods examined, whereupon it was found that the goods imported by the appellants were corduroy fabrics, denim fabrics etc. attracting high rates of duties. The goods were seized under a mahazar and, subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the importer. These notices demanded duty on the goods at rates applicable to the above fabrics, proposed confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and proposed penalty on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. The party did not reply to the show-cause notice, nor did they appear before, the adjudicating authority despite notices of hearing. Consequently, an order came to be passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs confirming ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....215 (Tri.-Bang.)]. The view taken by the said authority has been upheld by the appellate authority. 4. Learned Counsel has today relied on the following judicial authorities in support of the plea for re-export of the goods :- (i) Siemens Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1999] (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.)]. (ii) Sankar Pandi v. Union of India [2002 (141) E.L.T. 635 (Mad.)]. (iii) M. V. Marketing & Supplies v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai [2004 (178) E.L.T. 1034 (Tri.-Chennai)]. Learned SDR has reiterated the findings of the appellate Commissioner and has also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Guru Electronics (supra). 5. After considering the submissions, we note that, in the case of Siemens Ltd. (supra), the Ape....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the supplier's statement. It is also on record that, almost soon after examination of the consignments, the importer took up the matter with the supplier and also requested the department for permission to re-export the goods. In the circumstances, the request should have been favourably considered. This is not to say that there was no misdeciaration of goods by the importer. In the bills of entry the importer declared the goods as 100% cotton fabrics but physical examination of the goods revealed to the contra. What happened was misdeclaration, which fact would attract Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. In other words, confiscation of the goods is unquestionable on the facts of this case. The surviving question is whether the redemption ....