9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out in Para 2 of the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, the subject goods were allowed for import freely up to 25-3-1996 and with effect from that date they became restricted. However, vide DGFT s letter dated 17-5-1996, grace period of 45 days was allowed if firm order had already been placed by the importer and the goods were not hazardous waste. This extended period expired on 9-5-1996. Appellant took the stand before the adjudicating authority that the date 10-5-1996 shown in the insurance policy as the Bill of Lading date was actually an error and in support of such a contention, letters by the insurance agent and the shipping company were produced. The Commissioner rejected the contention raised in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the contention that the goods were not restricted and were permissible even after 9-7-1996. He also referred to the Policy Circular No. 11/92-97, dated 5-8-1996 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade stating that the provision of Ministry of Commerce Notification dated 11-7-1996 allowing free import of non-hazardous metal scrap could apply to goods already arrived prior to 11-7-1996 but not cleared by the Customs Authorities as long as such goods came under the relevant codes mentioned in the Notification. By a subsequent letter dated 12-9-1996 addressed to the concerned Commissioner himself in response to his DO letter dated 8-8-1996, it was clarified that the earlier circular dated 15-8-1996 could also be applicable in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1996. He had, however, held that if there was a Bill of Lading with date 16-4-1996 such a Bill of Lading had not been produced before him. There is a letter issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi by the American President Lines stating that the cargo in question was handed over to them at Houston on 28-3-1996 and the cargo sailed from Long Beach Port on 16-4-1996. The Bill of Lading contains a remark `loaded on Board OOCL Hong Kong V4 on 16-4-1996 at Long Beach and that the said Bill of Lading was originally printed on 26-4-1996 and the final revised copy printed on 24-5-1996. These letters, cumulatively considered, clearly support the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the date 10-5-1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
