TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, to establish the identity of goods re-exported and correlate the re-exported goods with the imported goods. As such, identity of the goods gets established and applicants are eligible for drawback as claimed by them. Government set aside the impugned orders and diverts the original authority to sanction the said drawback if otherwise in order, revision application succeeds in terms of above. - 375/36/DBK/2009-RA - 400/2010-Cus., - Dated:- 18-11-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. [Order]. This revision application is filed by M/s. Star Wire (India) Ltd., Faridabad against the order-in-appeal No. C.C.(A) Cus/ICD/231/09 dated 16-7-09 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, New Delhi with respect to order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order-in-appeal is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 4.2 That, it is well known fact that metal scrap is not imported in packaged condition and there could, therefore, be no marks or number on packages, which are normally considered for checking identity of the goods. Hence examination report on the shipping bill to the effect that Identity of goods cannot be established in the absence of any identification marks and hence not established. should not have been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeal) and he ought to have considered other documentary evidence produced by the applicants before him for identification of the consignment. 4.3 That, as may kindly be noted that the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that no evidence was produced, is also not factually correct. 4.4 That, the examination report on the shipping bill gives the weight of the consignment as 35.05 M.T. against invoice weight of 34.881 M.T. The difference in weight is negligible i.e. 0.169 M.T. which comes to less than 0.5%. Such negligible difference in a consignment of 35 M.T. can be due to weighment error or use of different weighing scales at different places and should not have been taken as evidence of non-identification of the consignment under re-export with that imported earlier, particularly when the description of the goods and the correspondence with foreign supplier whose genuineness is not doubted, had established the identity. 4.5 That, when the weight an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d numbers on packages when scrap is not packaged and does not, therefore, carry marks and numbers for establishing identity of the consignment. 4.8 That in view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order-in-appeal may be set aside and drawback claim may be ordered to be paid to the applicants. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 21-10-10/22-10-10 was attended by Shri Shashi Prakash Sharma, Assistant Commissioner (Customs) on behalf of the respondent who submitted that order-in-appeal is legal and proper and same may be upheld. Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate appeared for hearing on behalf of applicants who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant invoice and B/E shows the description as stainless steel scrap solid Grade 304 and quantity 34.88 MT, port of shipment Singapore. The descriptions given in the shipping bill is same. The name and address of the consignee is also same as that of supplier of goods. (b) The B.R.C. dated 11-10-08 is the proof that said scrap has been exported to Singapore. (c) Further correspondence viz. applicant s letter dated 8-1-08, supplier s e-mail dated 25-2-08, supplier s letter dated 26-3-08 vide which he agreed to take back the said goods. 9. Government notes that the description of the goods as given in all the import tallies with the description given in export documents. The foreign remittance is also received as per B.R.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
