9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57, 458 and 459 for exporting Sesame Cake (Gingelly Cake) and the weight of each consignment was 99 tons odd. The No. of bags in each shipment was 1426 and the weight of each bag as indicated therein was 160 Lbs. gross. The Customs authorities had reasons to believe that the declarations in the shipping bills concerning the above mentioned consignment were not correct and that the samples were drawn from the goods sought to be exported and were found to be of groundnut oil cakes which were assessable at a much higher rate of duty than that given in the case as declared in the shipping bills. It was further found that each bag weighed 200 Lbs. It was thus found that there was misdeclaration of the description and weight of the goods in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reply by the specific date failing which the case will be decided. As the copies of the documents were not supplied, the appellants did not appear for the hearing. The result was that the Additional Collector passed the impugned three ex parte orders on 14-6-1956. Those orders were challenged in appeal before the Central Board of Excise Customs. The appeals have since been transferred to this Tribunal and have been argued by both the sides. 5. Although the appeals were filed in 1956, they could not be decided by the Board for one reason or the other. The main ground was that criminal proceedings had also been initiated against Shri G.S. Palriwala, Shri G.N. Palriwala, Shri S.N. Palriwala and Shri C.T. Joseph and others. All these per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the space booked by the appellants in the ships was to be used by the three exporting firms. He has not been able to lay his hands on any evidence. He submits that circumstances existed in record which go to show that the said space was to be utilised by the exporting firms to send out the disputed goods. He could not produce any evidence, oral or documentary, whether any authority had been given to the exporters to utilise the reserved space of the appellants. We thus find force in the contention of Shri Bhandare that the mere fact that some space in the ship had been booked by the appellants does not ipso facto prove that the same was to be used by the exporting firms. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the allegation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by one S.N. Mondal, who is ascertained to have been a shipping assistant in the office of M/s. Palriwala Bros. Ltd. 3. That the duplicate copy of the shipping bill has been endorsed by Shri C.T. Joseph, the Licenced Sircar No. J. 36 of the Custom House, who can only attend the work connected with the goods imported and exported by the said M/s. Palriwala Bros. Ltd. and their associate firms viz., M/s. Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd., M/s Kedarnath Madanlall etc. 4. That the boats for the carriage of the goods from the Baza Ghat to the docks were arranged through the Boat Contractor Fahad Khan by one Shri Ram Pratap Singh, an authorised representative of the said M/s. Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. and M/s. Palriwala Bros. Ltd. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 1. Bharat Mineral Industries ₹ 5117-4-0 2. Bharat Marble Co. ₹ 5117-4-0 3. Gopal Dass Saksaria ₹ 5117-4-0 Shri Nair has contended that these are the three exporting firms on whose behalf the payment was to be made to the Customs authorities and that these amounts are reflected in the duties payment in the 3 shipping bills filed by the three parties. This is the only evidence on which Shri Nair has tried to rely. When it was put to the learned representative of the respondent as to whether this evidence i.e. letter to the above-me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
