2017 (6) TMI 1224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at had been submitted at the time of assessment. On the plea that these did not find a ready market in India, 627 pieces were sought to be exported on 16th May 2007 against claim for drawback of Rs. 35,06,241 under section 74 of Customs Act, 1962. Consequent upon investigation, and on the ground that there was sufficient evidence of the goods entered for export not being the same as those imported, the claim for drawback was rejected, the goods confiscated with fine of Rs. 8,00,000 imposed in lieu, and penalties Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on exporter and on the partner, Shri Romy P Mehta, respectively vide order-in-original no. CC/PMS/42/2008 dated 29th August 2008 of Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the impugned order was not in conformity with law. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned order. 4.  On a perusal of the documents, it is seen that material detail pertaining to the import and export consignments do exist. It is also seen that the impugned order had not ventured to examine whether these do match. In re Madura Coats, it was held that '4. After carefully going through the case it is observed that essential requirement of Section 74 ibid is that the goods should be identified to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Collr. to be the same as the goods which were imported. Normally this satisfaction is reached by inspection of the goods/packages, comparing the examination report or othe....