2019 (6) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 (e) & 111 (m) of Customs Act 1962 with option for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- for alleged mis-declaration of woven fabric is assailed in this appeal. 2. Factual backdrop of the case is that Appellant purchased four consignments of mixed stock lot of fabrics from M/s. MEIYO BOEKI SOKHAI, Japan and filed 4 Bill of Entry seeking clearance of the same through their CHA as the original importer M/s. S.D. International, Surat failed to honour the import documents in time and offered the goods to appellant. The goods covered under Bill Of Entry No. 653738 dt. 22-12-2005 stated to have contained 104851.10 yards of mixed lot fabrics which is the subject matter of the present dispute. Further case of the appellant is that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) ignored appellant's defence in not taking evidence of the Customs officers, who collected representative samples and appellant was not permitted to cross examine the Customs Officer as well as examiners of goods and other person namely Shri Rajbir Singh, on whose statement reliance was placed by the adjudicating authority. He further submitted that para 7 of the show cause notice confirmed that goods were examined under first check procedure so as to accept and complete acceptance of goods and on the basis of said Examination Report, duty liability was discharged but DRI subsequently collected some samples from appellant's godown on the strength of identification of those samples by the said Rajbir Singh th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ption for which order passed by Learned Counsel for Commissioner of Customs is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent Department reiterated the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and take us through his finding as to how mis-declaration of the description of the goods as knitted fabrics was made in respect of woven fabrics that was confirmed by subsequent test report dt. 14-2-2006 and 24-2-2006 after testing of 4 samples collected and sought no interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. 5. We have heard both the sides at length and perused the case record. It is an admitted fact on....