9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contract dated 7-3-1987 with M/s. Johnson Internation Inc. U.S.A. for import of 40,000/- kgs. of old synthetic rags in completely premutilated condition. The appellants also opened a Letter of Credit through the State Bank of India in respect of this contract. 4. The suppliers shipped the goods in Container No. SCXU 5067336 which arrived at ICD, Pragati Maidan on 10-8-1987. The documents in respect of that consignment were not negotiated by the State Bank of India due to some discrepancy. The documents were returned back by the State Bank of India to the overseas Bank. The applicants had no title over the goods and therefore they did not take any steps for clearance of the same. They did not file the B/E. Even in reply to the Custom Hou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The applicants stated that they were actual user (Industrial) and required inter alia synthetic rags for use in their factory. They also submitted that the goods imported had to be taken as completely premutilated rags as per the Import Policy for 1985-88. In this connection they referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Kakkar and Co., and Others v. C.C. New Delhi [1988 (35) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal)] which had been confirmed by the Supreme Court vide its Order dated 28-4-1989. It was also mentioned that the Tribunal had followed the aforesaid decision in M/s. Kakkar and Co. in the applicant s own case vide Order No. 274/89-NRB dated 12-7-1989. It was, therefore, argued that the goods imported had to be considered as completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. We find that admittedly the order for importation of these goods was placed by the appellants. However, the appellants assertion that the documents were returned to the shippers and could not be negotiated finally and, therefore, the title of the goods remained with the suppliers has not been contradicted or found wrong by the department. 12. On the contrary the appellants have produced a certificate from the State Bank of India dated 19-6-1989 stating inter alia that on receiving instructions the documents were returned to the negotiating bank in New York. 13. Further the appellants have not filed any Bill of Entry and have not claimed the goods and have not come forward to clear them. As a result of the actions and inactions on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
