2002 (7) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....garwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants for the first time imported a consignment of 3,648 pairs of assorted varieties of sport shoes from M/s. Adel Mohd. AL Hussain Trading Co, Dubai; that they had placed orders for shoes of Indonesian origin; that on examination of goods by Customs Officers, 936 pairs were found to bear stickers "Made in China"; that as the sports shoes of China origin are of inferior quality and subject to anti-dumping duty, they enquired from the supplier about supply of shoes of Chinese origin; that the supplier under Letter dated 2-12-2001 informed that due to mistake of porters and loaders, certain quantity of shoes of Chinese origin were loaded; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... used the words 'similar packing' whereas the Adjudication Order mentioned the words 'same packing' which is not correct. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) in support of the contention that importer cannot be treated as owner of the goods. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Bin Sabt Jewellery v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 169 wherein it has been held that goods are not liable to confiscation if the same are still within the Customs barrier. Finally, the learned Advocate submitted that provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act are not applicable as the same relates to valuation. The learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emical Suppliers v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (67) E.L.T. 25 (S.C). The learned Senior Departmental Representative also mentioned that the imported goods had been assessed to duty on the basis of declaration made by them and they had also deposited the Customs duty assessed initially; that further at no stage of adjudication or even first appeal they had requested for re-exporting the goods back to the supplier and, therefore, at the stage of second appeal they cannot request for re-export of the consignment; that the facts in the case of Bin Sabt Jewellery, supra, are different inasmuch as the importer therein was found to be fictitious which is not so in the present matter and accordingly the ratio of the said decision is not applicable.....