9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) entertaining the appeal against the order from the Assistant Commissioner. Provisional release of goods - Whether the goods in question can be released to the respondent holding them as the owner of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT:- In the present case is concerned, it is undisputed that the invoices and bill of lading are in the name of the respondent. It is true that in their statement, the respondent denied that they are not the importers, which is now being disputed by the respondent s Counsel. However, the key to decide who the owner of the goods in case of international trade is the bill of lading, which is the document of title ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Adjudication Cell (Port), Customs House, Kolkata, by his letter dated 27.09.2018 rejected the request for provisional release of the goods. Aggrieved by this letter, respondent appealed to the first appellate authority, who by the impugned order, allowed the provisional release of the goods subject to some terms and conditions. This order of the first appellate authority was reviewed by the Revenue and having felt that it was not correct, the present appeal is filed. 3. The Ld. D.R. for the Appellant Revenue, asserts that in the first place, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to issue the impugned order, because th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve error in allowing provisional release of the goods to the respondent. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the first appellate authority has correctly allowed their appeal seeking provisional release of the goods. He submits that the statements were recorded by the DRI. The respondent not being very familiar with the technical differences between the legal terms, has made the statements as pointed out by the Ld. D.R. He explains that the respondent s business involves acting as an indenter. He collects orders (indents) from various persons for goods and thereafter, he imports goods as per the orders on his own account. The Bills of Lading, invoices, payments to the overseas suppliers, are all on his a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d may be rejected. 5. We have considered the arguments from both sides and perused the records. The two key issues which fall for decision are (a) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in entertaining the appeal against the letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the provisional release of the goods without indicating in it that the decision to reject was taken by the Commissioner and that he was only conveying it ; (b) whether the goods in question can be released to the respondent holding them as the owner of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that the letter of the Assistant Commissioner nowhere indicates that the decision was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
