9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Delay in shipment of baggage beyond permissible time limit under baggage rules. Lack of evidence for condonation of delay.
In this case, the appellant appealed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, which did not condone the delay in the shipment of the baggage beyond the permissible time limit under the baggage rules. The appellant claimed that the delay in shipping the baggage was due to the forwarders' non-availability of shipping space, and he presented a photo-copy of a receipt as evidence of payment to the forwarders. However, he failed to produce the original receipt before the lower authority and could not explain the discrepancy in dates on the receipt. The appellant argued that he is a bona fide passenger with no commercial motive behind the baggage items and requested condonation of the delay. On the other hand, the Department's representative contended that the delay was not justified, pointing out that most of the baggage items were new, not old as claimed, and no purchase receipts were provided for these new items. The Department argued that the lower authority correctly refused to condone the delay based on the evidence and circumstances of the case. The Department's representative highlighted that a letter from the forwarders indicated that the delay was due to non-availability of containers, but the Master Bill of Lading and House Bill of Lading contradicted this claim. The Department also raised concerns about the newness of most baggage items and the lack of purchase receipts, suggesting an attempt to import new items under the guise of the appellant's baggage. The Department argued that the lower authority's decision was appropriate given these discrepancies and the failure to provide adequate evidence to support the condonation of the delay. The appellate judge considered both parties' arguments and emphasized the importance of providing a receipt from the forwarding agent as proof of baggage handover. The judge noted that no such receipt was produced before the lower authority, and the photo-copy of the receipt presented during the appeal was dated after the baggage was allegedly entrusted to the forwarders. Additionally, the judge found that most baggage items were new, and no purchase receipts were provided, casting doubt on the ownership and legitimacy of the items. The judge concluded that the appellant failed to establish ownership of the baggage items, especially considering the delay in shipment beyond the permissible period. Ultimately, the judge upheld the lower authority's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the lack of evidence supporting the condonation of the delay in shipping the baggage.
|
