2015 (10) TMI 2546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... whether penalty u/s 114 correctly imposed upon the appellant? - Held that: - The opening para of the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2011 conveys that some exporters were exporting Jute yarn in the fuise of Jute Yarn, which support the view of the appellant that there was a general practice in trade to consider the export goods as Jute Twine. If the visual examination only was sufficient to distingu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Customs Act, 1962, by the Adjudicating authority under Order-in-Original No. Kol/Cus/Port/13/2011 dated 30.11.2011. 2. Shri Sanjay Bhowmik (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that as per trade practice the exported goods were considered as Jute Twine and declared under Drawback(DBK) Schedule Sr.No.560704A. That on being pointed out that the goods were not Jute Twine but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been correctly imposed upon the appellant. Appellant exported goods and declared the same as Jute twine of DBK Schedule Sr.No.560704A when the goods were actually Jute Yarn. On being pointed out appellant paid back the export incentives taken. It is the claim of the appellant that product exported was considered as Jute twine as per trade practice. The opening para of the Order-in-Original da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X