9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential reliefs. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are primarily engaged in the business of import and export of various products. One M/s. Venture Impex entered into an agreement with the petitioner no.1 for purchase of Rubber Processing Oil (RPO) sometime in December 2016 for supply of 493.967 metric tonnes of 'RPO'. We do not wish to burden this order with detailed facts at this juncture. The petitioner no.1 claims to be the unpaid seller. M/s. Venture Impex (importer) filed a bill of entry in respect of the said goods. The goods were not cleared from December 27, 2016 till the date of filing of the petition by M/s. Venture Impex nor any attempt made to clear the cargo with respondent no. 7 and no delivery order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decisions of this court in support of his contention that if the original consignee has abandoned the imported goods and not made any claim towards it for long period of time, respondents will not be justified in insisting for obtaining NOC from the original consignee. The decisions being i) Rakesh Dhir Vs. Union of India 2010 (252) E.L.T. 173(Bom.) ii) Glencore Agriculture India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2018 (362) E.L.T. 81 (Bom.) and iii) Agrocorp International PTE. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2017(349) E.L.T. 34 (Bom.). In the case of Rakesh Dhir (supra), this court in paragraph 15 observed thus: "15. It is now well settled that the power of judicial review of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Civil Court. The Customs officers should not be entering that arena. More so, when on instructions, the petitioners counsel states that they will indemnify the authorities against all claims which are raised by any party and particularly relating to the title to the goods in question. In the circumstances, all the more, we do not think that the request should be kept in abeyance." 7. Learned counsel for the Customs, Mr. Mishra justified the decision to auction the goods as bill of entry was already filed by M/s. Venture Impex. According to Mr. Mishra this is not a case of abandonment of goods on the part of M/s. Venture Impex. 8. In our opinion, considering the law laid down by this court, it would be in the interest of justice if the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
