9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the second respondent has agreed that the goods were sent in his name with his consent and they are meant for the third respondent. Nevertheless, faced with the detention and the allegation of undervaluation, only before this Court has he disowned the transaction. Indeed, it is a matter the Department must probe into. Pending adjudication of the proceedings under the Ext.P3, the second respondent will get the goods released, without any liability attached to it, and hand them over to the third respondent. - WP(C). No. 23635 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2018 - MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN For The Respondent : ADVS. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC, CENTRAL, BOARD OF EXCISE AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd respondent, who has filed an additional counter affidavit, too. The petitioner joined the issue by filing a reply. 5. Initially, the learned counsel on either side have argued extensively on the merits. Eventually, the counsel for the third respondent has submitted that earlier too, it has imported goods through the second respondent. Now only because the authorities have detained the goods on the allegation of undervaluation, the second respondent has disowned the entire transaction. In that context, he has submitted that he will not only pay the petitioner for the goods, but also participate in the inquiry under the Ext.P3 and comply with the Departmental orders to be passed. Then, the Department must release the goods in his fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent should not be visited with any penal consequences. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel for the first respondent, the learned counsel for the second respondent, as also the learned counsel for the third respondent. 10. Indeed, there is more than what meets the eye in this transaction. It reflects how a statutory scheme is exploited or abused. The second respondent holds the I-E code, but admittedly its Proprietor knows nothing about either import or export. He seems to be a name lender. And that name lending is with his actual knowledge, at that. He admits that earlier too there had been transactions. 11. The Ext.P3 show cause notice records that the Proprietor of the second respondent has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ext.P3 and, in the second respondent's name, should comply with the orders to be passed by the Department. (4) As a result of this transaction, if any statutory liability is to be fastened on the ostensible consignee, that is the second respondent, the third respondent will discharge all those liabilities. (5) The third respondent undertakes to pay the petitioner the sale consideration in one week from the date he gets the goods released provisionally by the Department. (6) As all parties admit that the Department has already passed an order for provisional release, as reflected in the Ext.P3 show cause notice, the Department will release the goods within one week from the date the second and third respondents comply with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
