9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Global Houseware Ltd. (appellants in Appeal No. C/287/07) had filed Shipping Bills for export of goods declared as "Stainless steel utensils made out of AISI 304 grade" and claimed to have been manufactured out of "SS sheets and coils" imported under DEEC licences. The first party had made such imports under two Advance Licences, while the second party had done so under seven Advance Licenses issued from the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade. The Department issued a show cause notice to M/s. Charminar Exports for denying DEEC benefit in respect of the utensils exported under 22 Shipping Bills, confiscating the export goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, confiscating the imported raw material also under Section 111 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emsp;It appears from the records that the case of the department was that SS utensils of inferior quality were exported or sought to be exported by the parties concerned by mis-declaring the goods as "Stainless Steel utensils of AISI 304 grade". It was also alleged that the imported raw material was diverted without being used in the manufacture of export goods. The case of the parties is that the test reports pertaining to export goods are in their favour. We have seen copies of these reports and they are all in favour of the exporters. However, these test reports have not been accepted inasmuch as it is the case of the Revenue that these reports were obtained after swapping of samples. Thus swapping of test samples is the core of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the acceptability of this ground. As we have already noted, the question whether test samples were swapped by or on behalf of the exporters at the place and time when the officers of Customs were also present is the moot question of fact to be decided upon in this case. It is asserted by the appellants in these appeals that no such swapping could have been made in the presence of the officers of Customs who drew the test samples. In this connection, it has also been pointed out by the ld. Counsel, that in an earlier case, the same Commissioner allowed cross-examination of the Officer of Customs by the exporter in the wake of allegation of swapping of test samples. This claim has not been contested. 6. With a view to doing justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
