9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e juice and 1200 tins of tomato juice from Australia. The said consignment was sent to India by the petitioners suppliers by the ship known as Nedlloyd Lek . On May 10, 1979, the petitioners filed the bill of entry in respect of the said goods with the Customs Department. The quantities mentioned in the said bill of entry were identical with the quantity stated in the bill of lading received by the petitioners from their foreign suppliers. The vessel arrived at Bombay Docks on May 15, 1979 and commenced unloading on May 16, 1979. The petitioners attended the Docks on June 5, 1979 with the Customs officials for the purpose of obtaining an order for clearance for warehousing in respect of the said goods. At the time of inspection, it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the impugned order, and the petitioners should not approach this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal. There is considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel, but I am not inclined to refuse relief to the petitioners on the ground of an alternate remedy for more than one reason. In the first instance, this petition is pending in this Court for the last over five years, and driving the petitioners to file an appeal at this juncture would lead to multiplicity of litigation. I inquired from Shri Sethna as to whether the appellate authority would be willing to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits within three months without raising the contention of limitation. Shri Sethna declined to give an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the goods imported and unloaded at the Port. The petitioner can take possession of the goods only after the clearance from the Customs Authorities and when the petitioners went to take possession along with the Customs Officers, it was found that certain quantity was missing from the cartons. Shri Chinai is right in his submission that the imported goods were pilferred after the unloading and before an order for clearance or deposit in a warehouse is made, and therefore the petitioners are not liable to pay the duty leviable on such pilferred goods. In my judgment, the provisions of Section 13 of the Customs Act are clearly attracted. Shri Sethna submits that it was necessary for the petitioners to produce the certificate of short landin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
