9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. 2. The said goods arrived at the Port at Bombay on 24th July, 2000. The importer was M/s. Rahul Associates but it did not clear the goods. Accordingly a notice was given by the appellants to M/s. Rahul Associates under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 17th January, 2001, M/s. Rahul Associates wrote to the Customs Authorities stating that they were unable to clear the goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods on payment of all legitimate dues. The High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar & Anr. reported in [1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) = 1992 (2) SCC 66]. In that case this Court was considering the action taken by the Customs Authorities under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. This Court found as a fact that the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the instance of the foreign exporter. 5. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that in all cases an exporter continues to be owner of the goods merely because the importer does not choose to clear them and in effect abandons them. The issue regarding title to the goods had been squarely raised by the appellants in their counter affidavit filed before the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962 in respect of the first consignment and ultimately by an order of adjudication dated 31st May, 2001 it was found that M/s. Rahul Associates was liable to pay customs duty of more than Rs. 9 lakhs of which the customs duty of only about Rs. 4 lakhs had been paid. After adjusting this amount the difference is, according to the appellants, recoverable by the appellants from M/s. Rahul Associates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of determining the issue whether the title to the goods in question had passed from the respondent to M/s. Rahul Associates. In the event it is found that the title had not passed, the respondent will be entitled to re-export the same subject to payment of such charges etc. which are rightfully leviable in respect of the goods. If the goods are found to belong to M/s. Rahul Associates, the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
