9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed packaging containers. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants imported 91 containers of pre-fabricated Malls from Holland for construction of Grab Hopper Dredger (Nehru Shatabdi) - a sea-going vessel, and cleared the same against six (6) Into Bond Bills of Entry during the period from 7-2-1989 to 7-6-1990. In the Bill of Lading it was indicated by the foreign supplier i.e. M/s. S.K. Demen, Holland, that the old containers used for packing of the said goods would be taken back by them. 2.1. The goods contained in the said containers were cleared under ex-bond Bills of Entry. After destuffing the containers, the foreign supplier wanted the appellants to dispose of their containers which were not reusable. On 15-12-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orage of the same. Vide letter dated 17-4-1996, Assistant Collector of Customs, Group-IV, Customs House, Calcutta, the appellants were informed that their request for relinquishing the title was not acceptable at that stage when demand for duty was confirmed on 8-12-1995. In their letter dated 11-7-1996, the appellants renewed their submission to accept their request for relinquishing of the title to the goods. The matter was closely perused by the Managing Director of the appellants company with Commissioner of Customs which finally evoked response from Additional Commissioner who in his letter dated 12-11-1996 communicated the Commissioner s decision in the following words : The matter has since been considered by the Commissioner. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the containers. His contention is that through ex-bond Bills of Entry the appellants cleared only the contents of the containers and in respect of the containers no ex-bond Bills of Entry had been filed as they were originally to be re-exported to the foreign supplier. He further submits that as the foreign supplier expressed his inability to take back the containers, the appellants wanted to clear the same on payment of customs duty for which purpose they requested the Customs to value the empty containers. As the value finally fixed and communicated to them by the Customs order No. 26, dated 8-12-1995, the appellants relinquished their title to the containers on 8-3-1996. The Consultant, therefore, vehemently argues that as the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utliorities from time to time in connection with valuation of the empty containers which resulted in issue of order dated 8-12-1995 finally fixing the value and quantifying the duty liability of Rs. 11,76,983.91. It should be made amply clear that fixation of value and quantification of the duty liability in respect of the subject containers were not challenged before us. 5.1. The present appeal confirms itself exclusively to the question whether or not the appellants have a right to exercise their option to relinquish the title to the subject empty containers. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. From the facts, it is evident that the goods i.e. Malls, packed in the subject containers were duly allowed to be stored in a Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
