9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1996 showed a quantity of 1465.321 M.T. as contained in the tanks at temperatures varying between 62oC to 70oC. After part discharge of the cargo the vessel moved to another location and discharged the remaining cargo on 10-10-1996 when another ullage report was filed. The second ullage shows that the oil contained in 2 tanks namely SLP and SLS stood fully discharged, that in another tank 2P the quantity was short to the extent 174.154 M.T. and in the 4th tank i.e. 2S, the quantity was less by 7.24 tonnes. The total quantity, shown in the second ullage was 1135.406 M.Ts. The Bill of Lading quantity was 1460.728 M.T. On ground of short landing the applicant claimed refund which was paid to them. Subsequently on 23-9-1997 show cause notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made at the instance of the steamer agents and not at the instance of the importers and that the observation of the Commissioner that they had committed a fraud was wrong. Referring to the survey made by M/s. Godrej Soaps in their factory, of the oil received by them on the same ship which was signed by the same surveyors it was shown that there was a shortage of 2.83% in the oil received by them. It was claimed that there was no truth in the allegation in the show cause notice that Godrej had received extra quantity and that they had agreed to pass on the same to the present importers. 3. Shri S.V. Singh, the learned DR observed that the second ullage report was made during the discharge of the cargo, therefore, no reliance can be plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the ullage report was made. On the observation that the present importers were not party to the making either of the ullage reports, it cannot be said that they had suppressed the existence of the first ullage. This is especially so, when the Commissioner himself observed that both ullage reports had the stamp of customs department. Nor do we find the allegation in the show cause notice to the effect that the second importer Godrej Soaps received excess quantity, to be born out by them. When the important allegations had not prima facie, seem to be established, at this stage we find that the applicants have made a prima facie case in their favour. We therefore grant unconditional stay of recovery of the refund already received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
