1985 (2) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Pleader for the appellant, the Collector of Customs and the Counsel for the respondent, who was the petitioner in the original Petition. The Counsel for the appellant has placed two points for our consideration ; (1) that there was a novation of the contract; and the attempt on the part of the respondent-petitioner was to export cashew kernels for a price below the international price, thus dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 00 cartons was not lower than that was obtainable on 11-4-1983, on which date the contract (which could not be fulfilled on account of labour trouble in the factory of the respondent-petitioner) was entered into. The only difference between the terms of the contract then and now is that instead of 500 cartons of 320 Grade Kernels to be exported at $1.55 per pound in terms of the contract as it was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 131 of the Custom Act would not be adequate and efficacious, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Collector of Customs, Cochin v. A.S. Bava [1978 E.L.T. (J 333) = A.I.R. 1968 SC. 13] distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 603) and in I(A.I.R. 1971 Calcutta 112). We do not therefore, think t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X