TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the 23rd April, 1978 he obtained an export licence issued by His Majesty's Government in Nepal for export of 20 metric tonnes of turmeric. On the the 7th July, 1978, 169 bags consisting of 70 Kg. each of turmeric crossed the Indo-Nepalese border at Joghani after complying with all the formalities and declaration. This consignment reached Kidderpore Dock on the 24th July, 1978. 3. A similar export turmeric licence was issued for export of 4 metric tonnes of turmeric on the 11th July, 1978, on the 13th July, 1978, 44 bags crossed the border and reached Kidderpore Dock on the 8th November, 1978. 4. These two consignments were kept in a bonded warehouse in terms of the Customs Act, 1962, but were not allowed to be cleared for export. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a further limb of his argument on this point, Mr. Bose contended with reference to Sections 50, 51, 57, 62, 64, 69 and 71 of the Customs Act, 1962 which relate to the warehousing of goods that when the goods are in the warehouse they are in control of the 'proper officer' of the customs and no question of seizing these goods arise. As such his submission was that there was no seizure of the goods in the instant case. 9. Alternatively Mr. Bose submitted that even assuming that these goods have been seized they were admittedly released on the 24th January, 1979. Thereafter on the 9th February, 1979 the respondent stopped the goods from being put on the board the ship on the basis of certain further alleged information. Mr. Bose contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the real authority, for checking the origin of the goods is the Land Customs authority on the Indo-Nepalese border. As such authority had already passed these goods, having been satisfied that they were of Nepalese origin. The customs authorities at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that they were not of Nepalese origin. 12. I may mention at this stage that it was not disputed by Mr. Bose, that if these goods were of Nepalese origin their transit through India was free under the relevant provisions of the Treaty and there was no offence committed under the Customs Act, 1962 authorising their detention or seizure. 13. It may be mentioned in this connection that on the 11th November, 1978 the customs authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere very similar to the facts of the present case. 18. I am inclined to accept this contention of Mr. Saraf on the evidence before which I must say are all one way and there is nothing to show that the goods are not of Nepalese origin. In the facts and circumstances, it must be held that there has been no contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 with regard to transit of these goods through India for the purpose of export to a foreign country. As I have already noted, it was admitted by Mr. Bose that if these goods are of Nepalese origin their transit through India is free and without any customs restriction. 19. In the result, this application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated below. 20. There will be a Wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
