Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: attempt to export in Nitco Marble And Granite (P) Ltd. vs Dy. Collector Of Customs on 11 November, 1994Matching Fragments
6. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
7. Request for a short adjournment.
8. Heard the appellant. The appellant submitted that the impugned order is totally untenable as the goods involved are not prohibited goods. There was no attempt to counsel or misdeclare the goods as the exporter has requested the department twice to get the goods examined. Sample was also drawn and sent for testing which confirmed the basic nature of the material.
9. It was further contended that in the findings portion of the lower authority it was mentioned that the exporter tried to misuse the DEEC scheme by attempting to export unprocessed rough cut blocks of marble which was not factually correct. In the original order the duty liability was worked out on the basis of an application to DGFT which is still pending clearance. The appellant argued that no import was made under DEEC scheme nor was any attempt made to export so called misdeclared articles. The imposition of redemption fine and penalty were totally unwarranted as the calculation of duty liability was made on the basis of a presumption that DEEC would have been claimed by the exporter on a later date.