2008 (12) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ard both sides. 2. Shri K. Thakar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants purchased imported silk yarn from Utkal Polyweave Industries Pvt. Ltd. who in turn had imported the same through Chennai Customs House. The total quantity purchased by the Appellants was 65 cartons out of which 15 cartons were sent to Bhagalpur for jobwork for weaving to silk .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsignments are part of the same lot purchased by the appellants from the same source which were imported together by the supplier. 3. He further states that the charge of misdeclaration in respect of 15 cartons is misplaced as the Railway receipt covering the said consignment clearly describes the consignment to be silk yarn though the printed covering note by the courier company mentions H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idering the records of the case I find that the appellants have a plausible explanation in support of their claim for the impugned goods. Moreover, similarly seized 17 cartons at Patna Railway station have been released to them by another Joint Commissioner after passing a detailed speaking order. The present consignment which is part of the same lot cannot be treated differently as the appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X