9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 2. It appears from the records that the appellants had filed Shipping Bill No. 4653 dated 24-12-1998 on behalf of M/s. Arul Jothi Garments, Tirupur (exporter) for clearance of a consignment of garments for export. The goods were examined on 30-12-1998 and 'let export order' issued on the same date as it appears from the copy of the shipping bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, the Commissioner found that the goods entered the port on 31-12-1998 and were stuffed on that date but subsequently destuffed on 13-1-1999. The shipping bill, however, indicated entry of the goods into the port, its examination and stuffing, and issuance of 'let export order', to have taken place on 30-12-1998. Accordingly, it was found that there was no correlation between the goods covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel reiterates this ground today. We have heard learned SDR also. 4. It is settled law that, in respect of goods already exported out of the country, the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs are invocable. For a penalty under Section 114 on an erring exporter or his conniving agent, it is enough if the export goods are found to be liable for confiscation under Section 113. This liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
