9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-283-284-21-22 dated 14.07.2021 which has been assailed in this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacturing and export of rugs/carpets/bathmats. The Appellant filed a shipping Bill No. 7331711 dated 01.10.2019 for export of 1324 pieces of Rugs, total FOB value of Rs. 60,34,284/-. On scrutiny, It was noticed that items mentioned at Sl. No.2 & 3 of the Check List did not match with the description mentioned on the label/tag attached with the actual goods in as much 'Handwoven Woolen Rugs [Pile: 50% wool + 50% Polyester with Cotton Backing/ 5702311 falling under chapter 5702 has been mentioned in Check List, whereas on the tag, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port goods with intent to avail higher rate of drawback and by inadvertent mistake the item that has 100% viscose contents was mentioned under fibre contents 50% wool and 50% polyester. This was a clerical error on the documents that caused the mis-tallying of items on the declared contents on the invoice and packing list. 5.1 The Learned Advocate for the Appellant also submitted that there were multiple articles mentioned on the invoice having different fibre compositions, which were tested by lab and mentioned accordingly on product labels too. Also, nine bales were drawn from the lot as samples [Nos. 235, 239, 242, 562, 565, 568, 586, 595 & 604] and sent by Customs Authorities, Dadri, for testing purpose to Carpet Export Promotion Counc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e competent authority ordered for provisional release of the goods vide order dated 22.10.2019 for their export as desired by the exporter. That the cogent explanation given by the Appellant, has been arbitrarily rejected by the adjudicating authority, thus drawing erroneous conclusion of mis-declaration. 6. On the other hand, the Learned DR justified the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. I find that only few goods were found to be mismatched with the invoice and packing list. I further find that the Appellant had given cogent explanation based on the statement and clarification of the shipper, via letter, clarifying that due to a large variety of goods being packed, the error occurred at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
