2019 (12) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case in brief is that IGM No. 20705/2008 dated 25.10.2008 was filed at JNCH figuring 100% Polyester Filament Yarn Raw White with importer name M/s Vallabh Wool Industries, Ludhiana but the said goods remained as unclaimed for almost two years. Earlier Alert Circular dated 03.11.2008 (RUD- 1) was issued by Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) of JNCH that some importers including M/s Vallabh Wool Industries (Appellant) were suspected to have been importing undervalued and mis-declared fabrics/yarn. On 18th June 2010, shipping line M/s Oasis Shipping Pvt. Ltd. filed a request for amendment of IGM No. 20705/2008 to change its description from 100% "Polyester Filament Yarn Raw White" to "Nylon Viscose Blended Yarn" and also to change the name of no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce of goods. He further submitted, with reference to judicial decisions report in 2018 (359) ELT 593 (Tri.-Del.) in the case of R.S. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 2015 (330) ELT 651 (Tri.- Del.) in the case Maiden Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs ICD, TKD, New Delhi and other case laws to substantiate his stand that bill of lading is no substitute of bill of entry to substantiate the charge of mis-declaration of importer consignment only on the ground that bill of lading was in the name of the appellant for which he was the importer and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondentdepartment Ms. Tru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not honoured the imported documents received by the bank and verbally over phone informed the matter to the exporter, after which it had no knowledge about the developments concerning the imported goods. It appears to be a self-exculpatory statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but no materials evidence on record has been placed by the respondent-department that would substantiate involvement of the appellant firm in the alleged transaction except that of the reply of the appellant regarding his source of acquirement of knowledge of discrepancy in the item supplied to the appellant firm. However, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof to established guilt of the appellant. Further the ground taken in the Or....