9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clearance was held by the Customs for l.T.C. purpose and on June 3, 1982, the case was marked to Customs Appraiser. The Petitioner claims that though all documents were produced before the Appriaser, no action was taken to appraise the goods since the Appraiser was under transfer. According to the Petitioner, goods were examined only on July 7, 1982 and were ordered to be released on July 17, 1982 after it was found that the import was in order for l.T.C. purposes. It is the claim of the petitioners that the goods were wrongly detained in the custody of the Customs authorities for a period of 47 days. On July 17, 1982, the petitioners sought detention certificate from the Assistant Collector and the detention certificate was issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... papers were put up to the Appraiser and, therefore, the bills of entries were again taken back by the petitioner's Customs House Agent and were resubmitted on June 24, 1982 along with the documents which were called for. The petitioner also made a request that the goods should be sent for second check but that request was rejected and examination order on first check was issued. Bills of entries were again taken away and were resubmitted on June 29, 1982 for waiver of the second examination order. The goods were then examined on July 7, 1982 and the sample was forwarded to the Customs House for inspection. The bills of entries were then submitted on July 9, 1982 to the Assistant Collector for acceptance of the licence and the bills of entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the Customs authorities, to produce the original record for my perusal to ascertain whether the claim made in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the return is correct or otherwise. Shri Bulchandani produced the entire file and on perusal, of the various endorsements made on the bills of entries and the nothings recorded by the Officer in the file from time to time, leaves no manner of doubt that the claim of the Customs authorities is correct. Shri Pochkhanwala submitted that the endorsements on the bills of entries do not indicate that the same were returned to the petitioner or his Customs House Agent and were re-submitted. Surely, the learned counsel does not expect that the Customs Officer who is dealing with hundreds of bills of entries e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 53 of the Major Ports Act, the authorities have discretion to waive the demurrage charges and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a small concern, the demurrage should have been waived. There, is no merit whatsoever in this submission. In the first instance, it is difficult to appreciate why the petitioner did not bother to clear the goods from July 17, 1982 when the Customs authorities permitted to do so. Secondly, the petitioner applied for remission of demurrage charges only on August 9, 1982 and that too without clearing the goods, the action of the Port Trust authorities in rejecting the claim cannot be faulted with on the, facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that the petitioner was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
