UNISILK LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the relevant laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the exporter') has filed this petition making several prayers. At the time of hearing the petition, however, the counsel for the petitioner pressed only prayer 9(B) of the petition and did not press the remaining prayers. Prayer 9(B) reads as under:-

(2.) The petition arises with the following factual background. In the year 1998, the petitioner exported 100% Mulberry Raw Silk to its various Indian buyers under 31 different consignments. The goods were shipped from Hong Kong and Singapore. The Indian buyers however, did not take the release of the documents from the bank. The petitioner, therefore, attempted to find new buyers in India who would be interested in purchasing such goods. Upon finding such buyers, the exporter filed necessary Bill of Lading with the customs authorities duly amended in this respect. The customs authorities however did not release the goods in favour of such new buyers. The petitioner, therefore, alternatively prayed for re-shipment of the goods which request was also not considered.

(3.) The respondent authorities, however, issued seizure orders some time in March 1998 purportedly under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the customs authorities passed four different orders dated 16-2-1999, 17-2-1999, 1-3-1999 and 8-3-1999 confiscating the goods in question.