TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The respondents in their reply dated 24-2-1992 have inter alia stated that they had imported polypropylene monofilament yarn under Bill of Entry No. 3349 dated 23-2-1984 from Korea. These goods were allowed clearance by the Madras Customs without any chemical test. However, subsequently in their factory premises they found the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terated the submissions made in their written reply to the show cause notice. Subsequently a letter dated 1-8-1992 was also received wherein it was averred that in the show cause notice a new point, that of identification of goods has been raised for the first time, in as much as at the first instance when their claim was originally rejected by the Asstt. Collector for non-production of duty payin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by inspection of the goods/packages, comparing the examination report or other connected documents relating to import formalities with examination of goods as reflected in the shipping bill against which drawback is claimed. 5. In the instant case in the absence of detailed examination/test report at the time of import this could not be done. The Appellate Authority therefore, relied on other pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, it is found that what was imported was not the commodity sought to be imported and physically the same goods are re-exported. 6. In the instant case Collector (Appeals) has reached a finding that the goods which were wrongly despatched from Korea have only been re-exported. This finding is reached after detailed discussion of evidence at paras 5 and 6. There is nothing perverse in that find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
