TAIPING INTERNATIONAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Referred Judgements :-
LAKHOTIA UDYOG V. UNION OF INDIA
HIRDIK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,108,UNIQUE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,CARDINAL GRACIOUS RD. V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY
GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG. CO. LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,INDORE
Click here to view full judgement.
Ruma Pal, J. -
(1.)The appellants had exported goods to India in July, 1988. According to the appellants, the goods were copper scraps and exported as such. According to the appellants, the goods were sent in two consignments in the names of two importers, namely, P.K. Kajaria and U.K. Kajaria (hereinafter referred to as 'the importers'). The payment for the goods was to be made through the Bank by retiring the documents of title to the goods. The importers failed to retire the documents. The documents were returned to the appellants' Banker in Singapore. The goods continued to remain at the Port of Calcutta.
(2.)In August, 1988 the goods were seized by the Customs Authorities. The appellants prayed to the Customs Authorities for leave to re-ship the goods as the title in the goods had not yet passed to the importers. The Customs Authorities refused. Instead, two Show Cause Notices, both dated 23rd February, 1989, were issued by the Customs Authorities to the importers alleging that they had contravened the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 by misdeclaring at least 40% of the imported goods as copper scraps when they were, in fact, copper wires and by seeking to import copper wires unauthorisedly and without any valid licence. No Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants, nor did the Show Cause Notice, issued to the importers, contain any allegation or charge against the appellants. Copies of the Show Cause Notices, issued to the importers, however, were forwarded to the appellants.
(3.)The importers did not submit any answer to the Show Cause Notices. The appellants did. In their answer the appellants claimed, inter alia, that the goods had been sent to India by the appellants pursuant to the orders placed by the importers and that the importers not having cleared the goods, the appellants should be permitted to re-ship the goods to Singapore. It was prayed that the Customs Authorities should 'allow any fresh buyer nominated by shipper/Banker to come forward and clear the goods upon payment of duty' and 'if no buyer is available, the goods should be allowed to be re-shipped at the earlier opportunity.'
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.