9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has ordered confiscation of the cut and polished diamonds imported by the appellant M/s. Shreeji Jewellery Ltd. (now known as Neysa Jewellery Ltd.) totally weighing 1184.61 carats valued at Rs. 1,04,80,922/- allegedly found short in their stock under Sections 111(d), (j) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has further held that the 997.09 carats of diamonds and 98.34 carats of diamonds valued at Rs. 72,22,796.11 have been used as substitutes for the imported diamonds and, therefore, they are liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d), (j), (o) and 113(d). He has also given an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 22 lakhs. He has also ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 2,44,324.52 clandestinely remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diversion of diamonds and substituted them with the locally procured diamonds. The said fact can also be ascertained from the purchase invoice and sale invoice/stock in hand by verifying the description of the goods such as grade, colour, shine etc. which has not been done. The explanation submitted by the appellant regarding the shortage in stock was also not considered in the adjudication order. 7. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to be readjudicated by the adjudicating authority by giving findings with regard to each of the defence taken by the appellants in their reply to the show-cause notice. 8. In view of this observation, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority by setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority the various bills of entries under which the import of 1184.61 carats of cut and polished diamonds were undertaken and also the accounts of utilisation; however, the adjudicating authority has discarded these evidences only on the ground that the import documents submitted by the appellant are not attested by the Customs and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel further points out that the same import documents were also available with the Customs and, therefore, even if the department did not want to place reliance on the unattested documents, the department could have relied on its own documents relating to the transactions, the details of which have been submitted, which has not been done in the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led evidence by way of submitting copies of bills of entries under which they had imported the goods and also the accounts which they had maintained in respect of the imports as well as consumption thereof. The only ground for non-acceptance of these documents is that these documents are unattested. However, this contention is quite silly to say the least. The department also maintains records of imports undertaken by the various importers and, therefore, the department should have verified from their own records, before rejecting the documents submitted by the appellants. If it is found on such verification that the details given by the appellants are incorrect, a specific finding to that effect should have been recorded. This has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
