2007 (10) TMI 1 - AT - Customs

Appeal to appellate Tribunal M/s Nulite imported goods on high sea sale basis He made agreement with appellate for sale and later he cancelled This raised dispute between M/s Nulite and appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership dispute over imported goods between WBECSC, Nu-lite Business Machines, and Shoreline Infrastructure Developers.
2. Validity of agreements and cancellation of high seas sale agreement.
3. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities and Tribunal in civil ownership disputes.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an ownership dispute over imported goods between WBECSC, Nu-lite Business Machines, and Shoreline Infrastructure Developers. WBECSC imported Electrolytic Copper Cathodes, which were later sold to Nu-lite Business Machines on a high-sea sale basis. Nu-lite Business Machines then sold a portion of the goods to Shoreline Infrastructure Developers. Disputes arose regarding the ownership and clearance of the goods, leading to legal actions and a Writ Petition filed by Shoreline Infrastructure Developers in the Bombay High Court.

2. The validity of agreements and cancellation of the high seas sale agreement were crucial aspects of the case. WBECSC rescinded all agreements related to high seas sales due to nonpayment by Nu-lite Business Machines and others. A tripartite agreement was entered into on 26-1-05, restoring all rights and titles of the goods to WBECSC. Allegations of fraudulent agreements and backdating of documents were raised, challenging the validity of the transactions between Nu-lite Business Machines and Shoreline Infrastructure Developers.

3. The jurisdiction of Customs authorities and the Tribunal in civil ownership disputes was a significant issue. The Commissioner, after hearing all parties, concluded that the dispute between Nu-lite Business Machines and Shoreline Infrastructure Developers regarding ownership was of a civil nature beyond the scope of Customs regulations. The Tribunal held that it was not empowered to settle civil disputes over ownership and advised the appellant to seek resolution through the appropriate forum for civil disputes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable, emphasizing the need for the parties to address ownership disputes through the appropriate legal channels.