2016 (12) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CAL). Shri Shridev J. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Department. ORDER Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar : The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Denim Fabric. They are also exporter of the goods manufactured by them. They exported one consignment to Nepal through Bill of Export dated 19-11-2003. The sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Denim Cloth (Sort No. 6204) 100% Cotton, 9 oz Poly Indigo Denim Style No. 6204. Since the description of the goods did not confirm to the laboratory report about the composition of cloth, the matter was adjudicated by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow, after giving the opportunity of presenting their case to the appellant. Commissioner through his impugned Order-in-Original 02/Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heme would not have been allowed to them since the shipping bill did not show the goods to be 100% cotton and export of 100% cotton was essential for the benefit of DEPB Scheme. They argued that it was clerical mistake and there was no intention to avail undue benefit of DEPB Scheme by mis-declaring the goods. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the description in the export inv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld not have been discrepancy in the description of goods in the different connecting documents. 4. The ld. DR submitted that it appears to be a clerical mistake on the part of the appellant. 5. We have considered the contentions of both the sides. We find that though there was no intention of availing undue benefit but due to different descriptions on different documents mis-declaration had ....