9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sactions were to be routed through the Bank namely, Bank PSC Dubai, United Arab Emirate. In the above said Bill of Lading, the petitioner's name has been shown as notified party. Thus, unless the transaction is complete in all respects, the petitioner cannot be termed as an Importer. To import the goods, the petitioner should have been given all the documents to negotiate the same with the Bank. In this case, the shipper has not given the documents and therefore, the petitioner has not come forward to take delivery of the same. Thus, the petitioner neither satisfies the definition of Importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 nor has crossed the threshold under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 to file a Bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice that was issued to the petitioner on 10.07.2018, wherein the petitioner was called to show cause as to why:- ''i. 1,82,066 Kgs of imported Soya Beans valued at Rs. 47,18,750/- (appraised value by the CE) covered under B/L No. SAFM 769367756 dated 19-01-2017 should not be confiscated under Sec. 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 25 (1) (iii) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011. ii. Penalty should not be imposed under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer for rendering the goods liable for confiscation.'' 4 . The petitioner has replied to the show cause notice on 28.07.2018, wherein it has been stated by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Opposing the prayer, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would draw the attention to previous transactions between the petitioner and the seller. A reference was made to the findings in the impugned order, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had dealings with the shipper from Dubai, inasmuch as in the earlier Bill of Lading No.CT00113211, dated 14.12.2016, wherein the petitioner's name has been shown as Importer. Therefore, it is submitted that there is a clear indication that the petitioner is an Importer for the purpose of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8 . The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further referred to the letter dated 09.02.2018 addressed to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely, Bank PSC Dubai, United Arab Emirate. In the above said Bill of Lading, the petitioner's name has been shown as notified party. Thus, unless the transaction is complete in all respects, the petitioner cannot be termed as an Importer. To import the goods, the petitioner should have been given all the documents to negotiate the same with the Bank. 11 . In this case, the shipper has not given the documents and therefore, the petitioner has not come forward to take delivery of the same. Thus, the petitioner neither satisfies the definition of Importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 nor has crossed the threshold under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 to file a Bill of Entry for clearance of imported good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
