TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has attempted to export the goods improperly to earn the drawback claim. It is seen that the appeal of M/s Shivam Overseas was already dismissed by the Tribunal. It is evident from the records that the Appellant was involved to export the goods improperly. Hence, imposition of penalty is justified.– Decided partially in favour of Appellant. - Appeal No.C/412/2007; C/81/2008 - Order No.A/11189-11190/2015 - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant (for Appellant No.1 only) For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das These appeals are arising out of a common order, and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he de-novo proceedings and requested for time, which was rejected. It is submitted that the Adjudicating authority in denove proceedings, had not disputed their submission recorded in the earlier Adjudication order. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench to the Para 2 of their reply to the Show Cause Notice dt.07.07.2000. The main contention of the learned Counsel is that the Appellant after detecting the damage goods in the consignment informed to the concerned customs officer. He is not concerned with the confiscation of the goods in any manner. He is not concerned with the mis-declaration of the goods in any manner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue drew the attention of the Bench to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso and passed the written order in the respective shipping bills, permitting export of the goods. If notwithstanding these facts, the impugned goods are ultimately held liable to confiscation, he had no objection to dealing with them under the law, as deemed proper, since, being neither the owner nor the exporter, he had no interest in them. 7. The Tribunal in the remand order categorically observed that the case of the Appellant was not properly discussed and remanded to the Adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication. In de-novo adjudication, the Adjudicating authority proceeded on the basis of statement dt.03.12.1999. It is seen that the Adjudicating authority had not disputed the contention made by the Appellant in his reply a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
