Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (11) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d filed Bill of Entry dated 26-2-1999. The said concern could not make payment to the consigner of the imported toys. Shipper approached the petitioner to buy the materials. The Shipping Agent filed an undertaking with the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (in short, the Commissioner) and permission was accorded to amend the Import General Manifest in the name of the petitioner. On 11-6-1999, Bill of Entry in favour of the petitioner was filed with the Commissioner. On 15-6-1999 the said authority directed checking of the goods. On 28-6-1999 the goods were examined by the officials of the Customs Department. On 2-8-1999 petitioner requested for a personal hearing which was granted. During the hearing, the petitioner submitted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 35/- was enhanced by the Customs authority to Rs. 6,44,997/-. Despite the fact that the petitioner was given time upto 1-9-1999 to make payment and in fact payment had been made on 13-8-1999, goods were sold on 7-8-1999. It is of vital importance that on 10-8-1999, Superintendent (Disposal) of the Commissioner office vide letter of even date sought for No Objection Certificate from (a) Appraising Officer, (b) Superintendent (Law), Pre-adjudication and (c) Office Supdt. IGM, and said No Objection was sought upto 31-8-1999 for contemplated auction/disposal of goods. Superintendent (Disposal) unmistakably acted with oblique motive, as the goods are shown to have been disposed of on 7-8-1999 i.e. prior to issuance of the letter calling for no o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner of Customs, refund of Rs. 3,80,000/- was granted. It was stated that adjudication order is appealable and therefore writ petition should not be entertained. When the matter was placed before the Court on 21-3-2000, a copy of the adjudication order was produced. The Bench hearing the matter observed that it was not clear from the order as to how the amount of refund has been worked out. Therefore, a direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner (Refund) who had passed the order to be present in person on 28-3-2000. On the date fixed, Deputy Commissioner appeared and explained the stand of the Department. As the aforesaid order was passed even without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have its say, the Assistant Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 8-8-2000 during pendency of writ petition, we entertain the petition. From the undisputed factual position it appears that the goods have already been sold and that too at much lesser price than the one declared by the petitioner and much less than the value of the goods adjudicated by the authorities. Though the petitioner had declared the value at Rs. 4,34,835/-, according to the Department, it was Rs. 6,24,997/-. It is baffling that the goods were sold for Rs. 2,78,000/-. On 2-8-1999, Joint Commissioner had fixed the price at Rs. 6,24,887/- as against the declared value of Rs. 4,34,835/ -. That being so, disposal of goods for Rs. 2,78,000/- on 7-8-1999 appears to be somewhat queer and mysterious. Be that as it may, once the petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of the freight and other charges, if any, payable in respect of the goods sold to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having custody of the goods. (c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold. (d) next to the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold due to the person having the custody of the goods. (e) next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the goods to the Central Government under the provisions of this Act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the owner of the goods." 7. On a bare reading of the provisions, it is clear that they have no application to the facts of the case. Section 23(2) deals with a c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates