9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60,000/-. 2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld Advocate alongwith Shri Ghosh, the Power of Attorney holder appeared on behalf of the appellants and narrated the factual position as below: 3. The appellants have been regularly importing surgical goods and Orthopaedic appliances from the Australian suppliers. Foreign suppliers from Australia shipped the consignment in question under Bill of Lading dated 1-5-1986. The contents of the consignment came to their knowledge on 12-5-1986 through the bank. Immediately they came to realise that the goods were not ordered by them and hence on the same day they sent a telex message that the goods have been sent without their asking for the same and asking the suppliers to call back the consignment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customs authorities they have been informed to file a Bill of Entry for re-export and hence they have requested to have the consignment examined and cleared for re-export. They filed the Bill of Entry on 5-9-1986. Thereupon the Collector initiated the adjudication proceedings in respect of the import alleging that the goods cannot be imported under OGL and passed the impugned order confiscating the same but permitting re-export on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/-. The adjudication order was passed on 9-12-1986, thereafter they filed the Shipping Bill in Jan. 87 and re-exported the goods. They also produced before the Customs authorities that no foreign exchange remittance has been made in respect of the consignment. Shri Willingdon Christian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try. However, since they are required to maintain their relationship with the suppliers who wanted the goods to be re-shipped, they had to file the Bill of Entry. For this, a huge penalty of Rs. 60,000/- in the form of fine should not have been imposed. 3. Shri K.M. Mondal, the ld SDR on the other hand, contended that the appellants noticing on perusal of the documents received from the bankers that a number of items are not in the OGL list, tried to create a story of wrong shipment. The Collector is right in holding that no supplier would have sent the goods of huge value without a firm order. In any case, the import of the goods is said to have been made because of a Bill of Entry has been filed by the appellants and when the import of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
