TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory condition remains as not fulfilled in this case. Any subsequent correspondence/fax message etc. cannot override the initial and main-statutory requirements which is that the specifications/detailed markings on the import Bill of Entry/Invoice should be exactly the same with those in shipping bills/export documents viz-a-viz actual (physical state of the) goods, It is not to be applied to those conditions/requirement which otherwise leads to specific consequences. The Customs authorities being creatures of Customs Act cannot ignore the statute thereof, revision application is thus rejected being devoid of merits. - 375/93/DBK/2007-RA-CUS - 35/2010-Cus, - Dated:- 19-2-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri Mohan Lal, Advocate, for the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as the imported goods and finally rejected the impugned Drawback claim. On having been aggrieved by the above orders of the jurisdictional authority, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who after due consideration of the submissions as made there is rejected the same and upheld the impugned order-in-original. 3. In the revision application, the applicant has made the following main submissions on his plea that order-in-appeal is illegal/void because of : 3.1 That the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) without considering the submission made by the applicant, abruptly came to the conclusion and observed that from the perusal of the Shipping Bill in question, it was not clear that the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Export) did not give any observation remark to the effect that he was satisfied with the identity of the impugned goods on the Shipping Bill. It is very apparent that on his direction, the applicants submitted the supplier s fax letter and the same was accepted and signed by the Asstt. Commissioner (Export). In the above case, observation by Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Export) was not at all necessary because it is obvious that only in case of contrary decision, Asstt. Commissioner would have given his observation, for not allowing re-export of goods. 3.4 That during the personal hearing on 23-4-07 before Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant s representative Sh. R.K. Kashyap stated and explained that Customs officials defac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplier sent the above items as replacement vide Bill of Entry No. 720757 dated 25-6-04. This circumstantial evidenced besides the material evidence supplied to Customs Department approves the legality and veracity of the claim of Drawback under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 by the applicants especially who are non-commercial organization and wholly functioning under Department of Space, Government of India. 3.7 Following case laws are being relied upon to substantiate our plea that on the basis of other collateral evidence and depending upon the circumstances identity of the goods can be established by the proper officer : (i) M.R. Jewellers v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 609 (Tri.) (ii) Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) E.L.T. (841) (Cal.) (ii) Gypsy Exports v. C.C., Amritsar - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 97 (T.-Del.) (iii) VST Industries Ltd. - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 525 (GOI) (iv) Modi Revlon Ltd. v. C.C., (Import) - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 252 (T. -Mum.). 5. Government has carefully gone through the records of the case including submissions as made above and relevant provisions of Acts/Rules as applicable in this case. 6. Government notes that this is a case of export of certain parts/attachments said to be integral pump sets of main imported item substrate Bonder . The details of these parts/attachments were not specifically and particularly mentioned in required details in the impugned Bill of Entry. At the time of export the then Asstt. Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. This statutory condition remains as not fulfilled in this case. Any subsequent correspondence/fax message etc. cannot override the initial and main-statutory requirements which is that the specifications/detailed markings on the import Bill of Entry/Invoice should be exactly the same with those in shipping bills/export documents viz-a-viz actual (physical state of the) goods. The case laws cited by the applicant are the judgments in respect of main imported/exported items and none of the judgments analysis/speaks about such a case of integral parts/usable attachment of main imported equipment/goods. 9. In view of above, Government feels that only procedural/technical infirmities which are curable by subsequent permissions deserve to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
