TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red/obtained release of the goods on furnishing of the Bank Guarantee of ₹ 10 lakhs in favour of the Central Warehousing Corporation in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 25.11.2016, we are of the view that the Corporation should be allowed to invoke the Bank Guarantee of ₹ 10 lakhs. Any further claim of the Corporation or any denial of any liability by the importer or the Customs Department, if raised, will be liable to be adjudicated in accordance with law. Petition dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 5720 of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 456 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - Ranjan Gogoi And Navin Sinha, JJ. For the Parties : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as follows: In the years 2000 to November, 2001, 18 different consignments of Copper Concentrate were imported by the respondent-M/s. Magus Metals (P) Ltd., which were duly cleared on being certified by the Chemical Examiner, Chennai, certifying the same to be Copper Concentrate. Two more consignments were imported on 24.12.2001 and 24.01.2002. It appears that three samples from the said consignments were taken by the Revenue and the respondent claims that while one sample was handed over to it, the remaining two were sent by the Revenue for analysis to Environment Protection Training Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'EPTRI') and National Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'NMDC' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the nine appeals referred to above. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. We have considered the impugned order as well as the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the reports submitted by EPTRI and NMDC in respect of the samples sent by the Revenue as also the report submitted by EPTRI in respect of the sample sent by the importer-respondent. Insofar as the order of the learned Tribunal holding the Show Cause Notice dated 18.03.2003 to be time barred in the six appeals referred to above, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and its conclusions in arriving at the said conclusion. The 'normal' period of limitation for issuing a Show Cause Notice under Section 28 is one year from the due date and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en held by the learned Tribunal though for different reasons. The report of the EPTRI and NMDC which forms the basis of the Revenue's case against the importer, in our considered view, is not conclusive. From the report of the EPTRI itself, it appears that the said Body has stated in its report that Comprehensive analysis for all the relevant parameters could not be performed on the sample due to insufficient quantity of sample . Insofar as the report of NMDC is concerned, the learned Tribunal in its order had recorded the conclusion that the NMDC report is not very conclusive to hold that the impugned goods have not originated from naturally occurring copper . That apart, from the memo of appeal filed by the importer before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order of the Tribunal insofar as Appeal Nos. C/281/02, C/282/02 and C/283/02 are concerned, though our reasons for the said conclusion are somewhat different. Consequently, and for the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and confirm the order of the learned Tribunal. There is a yet another dimension to the case. By an interim order dated 25.11.2016 of this Court, the subject goods have been released subject to furnishing of Bank Guarantee of ₹ 10 lakhs on account of demurrage charges. We are told that the goods have since been released. The liability of either of the parties to the present lis to pay the demurrage charges is an issue that does not directly arise for consideration in the appeal and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
