9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various items of readymade garments. These were supplied under five invoices dated January 14, 26 and 28 of 2002. Two Bills of entries were filed by the Appellants on 11-3-2002 and the goods were warehoused in their unit on 19-3-2002 and 21-3-2002. We do not find any report of inspection recorded on the Bills of entry regarding opening of the packages in the presence of the Customs officers. Shri S.K. Mehta ld. Advocate states that the packages were opened by the Appellants and as stated in the reply to the impugned show cause notice, part of the goods were found defective and of very small size. Shri Mehta states that on 26-3-2002 the Appellants wrote a letter to the Development Commissioner with a copy to the Superintendent of Customs int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department, we have to give the benefit of doubt to the Appellants that it is the appellants who first discovered the deficiency in the impugned goods. It is also on record that they have written to the Development Commissioner and the Customs Department on 26-3-2002 regarding the receipt of defective goods and they have asked for permission for re-export on 10-5-2002 well before drawal of samples and seizure by the Department on 28-6-2002. The ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants also cites the Board's Circular No. 60/99-Cus., dated 10-9-99 which allows replacement and re-export of goods imported and found damaged or defective or otherwise unfit for use. 4. In view of our finding as above that the appellants were the first to intim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses (i) All appeals relating to core cases of Search/Block assessment and such other cases of search, as are assigned by the CCIT. (ii) All appeals referred to a Special Bench or Third Member Bench of ITAT. (iii) All appeals filed against order passed under Sec. 263. (iv) All appeals in which the aggregate of the additions made by the A.O. in case is more than; (a) Rs. 2 crore in the cities of Mumbai and Delhi. (b) Rs. 1 crore in the cities of Chennai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Pune and; (c) Rs. 50 lakhs in other cities. (v) All scam related cases. 7. We are of the considered view that the Central Board of Excise and Customs should do well, in public interest, to issue a similar work allocation order so that impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
