2009 (4) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a declaration to the effect that they will not claim any duty drawback or benefit of duty for the licence under the duty exemption scheme. When the goods were presented for examination to the Docks Officers on 26-06-2003,it was found that all the cartons contained very inferior quality of Dyed Fabrics. Shipments of the goods were not allowed and the case was referred to the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of this Custom House for further investigation. A show cause notice was issued and the representative of the respondent accepted the value and also the mis-declaration and waived the issue of show cause of notice and requested that the adjudication order may be passed. It was held that there was a wilful attempt to ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to be exported out of India are liable for confiscation under section 113(d) and 113(ii) of the Customs Act 1962? 3. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that since the goods were not prohibited goods, the notice under Section 113 was not warranted. The learned counsel submitted that the words "dutiable or prohibited" goods were omitted in section 113 of Customs Act 1962 by the Finance Act, 2003(32 of 2003) with effect from 14-05-2003 and this was overlooked by the Tribunal and the learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel also submitted that when there is acceptance on behalf of the respondent that there was misdeclaration, the overvaluation itself would render the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion issue directly relates to the issue whether or not the authorities were justified in holding that the respondents had undervalued the goods for the purposes of assessment of duty and that this question shall be raised by filing a statutory appeal before the Supreme Court. 7. In 2004 (165) E.L.T. 34 (P & H) it is held as follows: "The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Uninterrupted Power Supply System (UPS). The Officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises of the petitioner on 16-12-1994 and found that during the period from 20-3-1992 to 13-7-1992. The assessee had cleared Lead Acid Batteries valued at Rs.9,07,600 involving duty amounting to Rs.98,838.50. In other words it was found that the assessee had not pa....