9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in continuation of his earlier application dated 13-12-96, to the Honourable High Court. 2. The statement of facts in support of the questions as narrated in Pages 7 to 12 of his application is in brief as follows. The appellant a private ltd. company under the Indian Companies Act, ascertained in or about 1983 that the import of rough marble slabs was allowed under the open general licence as raw material and that such goods had a good potential for sale in India. They decided to import the same from Italy and place orders with Metal Traders UK Ltd. (Metal Traders for short) for the import of the said goods and the shipment were to be affected against inevocable letter of credit to be opened by them which was done on 16-11-1983 under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were not provided with the documents or the inspections of the same and inordinate delay was caused. They approached the Collector of Customs, adjudication authority for guidance by addressing the letter dated 25-8-86 setting out the legal grounds in detail against the show cause notice as not sustainable and also pointed out factually on the department s allegation of the antedating of the bill of lading was baseless. The very same vessel had brought cargo said to have been loaded on various dates on various ports when on these dates the said vessels were not at those ports. Even in the case of import of marble, there were other bill of lading of other importers dated 31-3-84 or even prior and after for which the department had not tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the Advocate and ultimately the Collector passed the impugned order challenging in the appeals, on 23-2-87 confiscating the four consignments of marble with redemption fine as shown therein. Penalties were also imposed in respect of each consignment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the appellant s company. The confiscation was under 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act. The appeal preferred against that order before that Tribunal was rejected and the redemption fine was reduced. 4. On behalf of the applicant Shri Rohan Shah has submitted his argument in support of his reference application. J.M. George, the ld. JDR, has argued on behalf of the respondent. Perused the application in all these cases, and the Bench order, dated 10- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be considered for reference. The question to be referred to the High Court must be clearly and specifically formulated. No general question such as the judgment of the Tribunal is correct in the facts and circumstances of the case can be formulated and referred as per 1986 (25) E.L.T. 379 in the case of CCE v. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. The question in A is similar to the above question. The interpretation of the true meaning and its nature of a purported CIF contract entered into by the applicants for the import of goods is involved. This is purely a question of fact, and no question of law arises out of the impugned order in that regard. So also the question G which deals with the rejections of the legal contention that the raw materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
