9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customs duty on 9 items of goods under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978. 2.Rule was issued in this petition at the first hearing on 4-8-1981. Thereafter it was listed only on 28-2-2002 when it was adjourned. At the hearing on 6-1-2006 the following order was passed : "WP.(C) No. 1507/1981 Mr. Salwan appears for petitioner. He points out that counsel for UOI has not appeared to file a counter affidavit. In the circumstances, we direct Mr. Sidharth Mridul Standing counsel for the Government of India to accept notice for the respondents and to file a counter affidavit. Mr. Salwan shall furnish to Mr. Mridul an additional set of papers within two weeks. Counter affidavit shall thereafter be filed by Mr. Mridul within six weeks. Rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to certain other items as " they were found to be new and show no signs of use." The petitioner then preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Collector by an order dated 26-11-1980. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Central Government under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act'). By the impugned order dated 20-1-1981, the Central Government extended the benefit of the Rules to certain further articles but denied the benefit to nine items listed at serial Nos. 24 to 32 on the ground that "these look new." It was further stated that "Government consider that ordinarily these items, particularly the refrigerator and air conditioner and cooking range, would leave some signs of use and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May/June, 1979 from an established business house in New York. She has further averred that she imported these goods into India at the time of transfer of residence in July 1980 and the goods arrived in Delhi in October 1980. Therefore, the condition that the goods should have been in possession and use of the petitioner abroad for more than a year prior to their import in terms of Rule 2(c) above stands satisfied. Significantly, the extent of use is not indicated in the Rule. In this regard, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that these goods were installed at the petitioner's house in Lido Beach, Long Island, New York. It is also averred that the petitioner's family also maintained a town house/apartment in New York near the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner nor a satisfactory compliance with the requirement of Rule 2(c). In the absence of the Central Government coming to a positive conclusion that the goods were not in fact in the possession and use of the petitioner for one year preceding the date of import, the benefit of Rule 2(c) could not have been denied. 8.For these reasons we are of the view that impugned order dated 20-1-1981 passed by the Government of India, to the extent that it denies the benefit of the Rules to the aforementioned 9 articles imported by the petitioner upon transfer of residence cannot be sustained in law and is hereby accordingly set aside. 9.Now for the consequential relief. The petitioner states in the writ petition that after the impugned order was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
