KABUL TEXTILES Vs. CCE, GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are a corporate body incorporated under the Laws of United Arab Emirates and carrying on business of trading in textiles and fabrics. They, through a broker agreed to supply certain fabrics to M/s. R.T. & Co. Delhi and M/s. Richitra Impex, New Delhi (hereinafter jointly referred to as "buyers") and shipments were made from the manufacturer in China directly to Marmagoa in India. The appellants invoiced the goods as 'Polyester Knit Fabrics' instead of the description as contained in the manufacturer's invoice as "Polyester Nicky Velour". Upon arrival of the said goods in India, the buyers did not retire the documents and or filed any bill of entry required for the clearance of the subject goods. The appellants by a letter dated 11.4.2001 requested the departments permission to re -export the said goods, since they had all titles of ownership to the said goods. They also gave further details for the consignments having been sent in India. They also gave further details for the consignments having been sent in India. By a show cause notice dated 4.12.2001, they were called upon to show cause why the said goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act and a penalty should not be imposed on them. They contested the show cause notice through their advocate. However, vide order dated 29.4.2003, the Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the goods and gave an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 73 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 73 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act. He has also ordered that the appellants were claiming ownership of the goods, they were free to either re -export or clear the same for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty. A penalty of Rs. 73 lakhs was also imposed on R.T. & Co. New Delhi under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Hence this appeal by the supplier of the goods. The matter was kept for early hearing and stay was heard on 4.9.2003. However, the orders on the stay applications could not be passed, since one of the learned Member (Technical), who was presiding over the Bench had since superannuated, the matters were listed for rehearing and after grant of early hearing on 2.1.2004 heard for final orders on 12.1.2004.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, and also the fact that the subject imports were made in the month of September 2000, it is found and held as follows:

(3.) ORDER of confiscation set aside and export of the goods allowed to the appellant.