2018 (4) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring for the appellant, it will be necessary to make a reference to the facts of the case. 3. The appellant exported a consignment of 485.370 carats of diamonds against Invoice No. SA/1111035/2/2011-2012, dated 28th November, 2011. The Appellant reimported the same consignment and filed a Bill of Entry. On examination of the goods at the time of reimport, two more packets containing 299.33 carats of diamonds said to be related to export under Invoice No. SA/1111003/2/2011-2012, dated 3rd November, 2011 were found. The Bill of Entry was filed on 8th December, 2011. The amendment of Bill of Entry was denied. On 18th May, 2012, the Order-in-Original was passed by the second respondent. By the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner of Custo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused both the impugned orders. The Appellate Tribunal has declined to accept the case made out that consignment was reimported without accompanying documents due to oversight. In fact there is a finding of fact that said claim is not a plausible claim as only a part of the exported goods were brought back. The Appellate Tribunal has referred to two e-mail messages received by the appellant which are dated 1st December, 2011. By the said e-mails, the customer in USA informed that goods covered by Excise Invoice Nos. SA/1111003 and SA/1111035 were being sent back. There is a finding of fact recorded that what was received back was not total consignment of export Invoice No. SA/1111003. The....