TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No. 94/2004-Cus. dated 10.9.2004. The second appellant is a licensed Custom House Agent who processed the clearance of the impugned goods through customs. Based on certain enquiry conducted at the CFS, from where the imported goods were cleared and also based on follow-up investigation, the Revenue proceeded against the main appellant to demand and recover customs duty by disallowing the exemption as above. The allegation against the main appellant is that they have mis-declared the goods which on examination was found to be mainly woven fabrics and not fully knitted fabric. Further, the consignment note recovered from the lorries to transport goods, indicated addresses which are not the authorized address for actual use by the importer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. When the case is called, none appeared for the appellants. On perusal of the appeal records, we note that these appeals were listed on many occasions and none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. The appeals were listed for hearing on 2.3.2017, 24.8.2017 and 6.9.2017. When the matter was listed on 6.9.2017, as a last chance another adjournment was granted to today. We were informed that Registry also informed the counsel on record about the date of hearing. It is learnt that the counsel informed that he has no instruction from the client. Since the matter has been listed many times and adequate opportunity has already been given with due notice to the appellant, we take up these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case of violation of conditions of notification and import license. It cannot be called as a procedural violation. Any amendment carried out in the license in 2006 will have no implication for cases of past import which were clearly shown to be diverted to other than the intended purpose. Accordingly, he submitted that these appeals are without merit and deserve to be dismissed. 6. On careful consideration of the appeal papers and upon hearing the ld. AR, we note that the main appellant did not at all contest the fact of diversion of these cargo which are imported with the conditional exemption. In fact, what he has mentioned in the grounds of appeal is a plain contest that they have not violated any condition and certain amendments carr....