TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued to M/s. Naik Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Naik Ice & Cold Storage, which were made transferable and were purchased by M/s. Unique Plastics Ltd. M/s. Unique Plastics had disposed of the HDPE except for a quantity of 83 MTs stored in a warehouse at Ahmedabad. The investigating authorities found that M/s. Naik Pvt. Ltd. had used only LDPE in the export of the qualifying goods and claimed that the HDPE could not be imported as replenishment material. With this belief the left over quantities of 83 MTs was seized. On the query being made the officers of that DGFT accepted that the qualifying raw material should have been LDPE only, and not HDPE. However, in the same letter citing some other provisions, the statement was made that the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplications. 4.In the appeal memorandum the claim is made that even now efforts are underway to get the advance licences cancelled by the DGFT. The action of the DGFT in acknowledge in their error and in the face of its declaring the goods as covered under the licence has also been questioned. On these grounds the revenue have challenged the orders of the Commissioner. The appeal also states that the Commissioner was wrong in accepting the statements of the properties of the high sea sellers. The fides is of the high sea sales are questioned and it is claimed that M/s. Deluxe and M/s. Kaaran Exports were still the importers. The revenue have also challenged the orders of the Commissioner directing release of the seized goods to "Their righ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecide the question as to whom the seized goods are to be delivered. It is stated by Mr. Dave that the question of original owner is not raised, however, with a view to see that the goods are not delivered, and the assessees are harassed, such questions are raised. We hope that the Tribunal will consider the same in proper spirit. The petition stands disposed of at this stage. Writ to be sent to the Tribunal forthwith." 7.We find that in the discussions, the Commissioner of Customs had not dwelt upon the ownership of the goods. In the appeal memorandum also, the Revenue have not given any opinion as to who the owner is. The statement made in the appeal memorandum is "the Commissioner ought to have considered that for the release of the good....