9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Rejoinder, if any within four weeks thereafter. Post the writ petition for hearing on 24th April, 2006. Court notice issued under the orders of Registrar shall stand rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 could not, after use, retain the same newness and shine which is observed in their case." The said nine items to which the benefit has been denied are : "24. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to show that the condition of the goods is such that they have not been in the possession or use of the applicant abroad for a minimum period of one year prior to such import. 6.In the present case the petitioner categorically states that she had purchased these goods in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order totally fails to deal with this explanation. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusion reached in the impugned order that upon examination of these articles they "look new" is neither a categorical contravention of the facts asserted by the petitioner 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
