2023 (11) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ayanavaram, Chennai with a request for allowing its application for early hearing of the appeal filed by it against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. Seaport C.Cus. II No. 477/2023 dated 21.07.2023. 2. Heard Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the applicant. We find upon hearing, that the only prayer in the appeal is for provisional release of the seized goods and hence, we grant early hearing and with the consent of both the parties, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal. 3.1 It is the case of the appellant that they had placed an order for import of "Polyester Coated Fabric (Polymeric Compound)" from a China based company vide various commercial invoices, the details of which are as under: - S. No Commercial Invo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dispute that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,37,86,402/- towards the same. 3.4 Thereafter, it appears that the DRI seized the imported goods vide seizure memos dated 19.10.2022 and 18.11.2022 and the said goods were permitted to be warehoused in terms of Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.5 It appears that the appellant pleaded before the authorities that it had only ordered for "Polyester Coated Fabric (Polymeric Compound)" and upon coming to know that a different product/goods had been exported by the supplier, they had immediately contacted the foreign supplier, in response to which their supplier appears to have accepted their mistake in wrong shipment and in turn, had requested the appellant to re-export the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er progress. The first appellate authority has recorded the pleadings in 32 paragraphs running to about 18 pages. He, however, has not countered the pleadings on law as well as facts urged by the appellant in the impugned order. 5. The crux of the contentions of the appellant before us are as under: - * No Notice under Section 124(a) ibid. having been issued, seizure of the goods was clearly without jurisdiction and illegal. * Investigation having been completed with the issuance of Show Cause Notice, the seized goods may not be required for investigation. * In any case, they had already deposited over Rs.2.37 crores which is sufficient to protect the interests of the Revenue. * The foreign supplier ha....