9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with one M/s. Enfield Steel Corporation of London, U.K. to purchase 500 Metric Tonnes of stainless steel Mother Tubes/pipes. The shipment of the subject goods commenced from July, 1986 and part-shipment and transhipment were allowed and permitted. According to the writ petitioner for the purpose of and in connection with the importation of the subject goods under the contract dated 22nd January, 1986, the writ petitioner acquired valuable rights and benefits of the R.E.P. Licence from time to time. Pursuant to and in terms of the said contract, the foreign seller shipped the first consignment containing three bundles of stainless steel Seamless Mother Tubes containing a gross weight of 3,420 kgs under a bill of Lading dated 23rd July, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 24.11.1986 is applicable. Let such goods be released within three days after the payment of the duty, if any." 3.It is not in dispute that on the basis of the aforesaid orders, the consigned goods which were involved in the said writ application were subsequently released by the Customs Authorities. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Customs Authorities that the consigned goods which are now involved in this writ application, were imported by the writ petitioner on the basis of the same contract, that is, 22-1-1986, and subsequently, the consigned goods, which are now involved in this writ application, had arrived in Calcutta Port in the month of December, 1987. Unfortunately, since December 1987, the consigned goods, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for modification and/or variation and/or vacation of the order disposing of the writ application was dismissed. Therefore, it is certain that the order of dismissal of the application for modification was not known to the writ petitioner at least till 24th January, 1995. The present writ application has been moved on 2nd May, 1995, in this Court. 5.From the aforesaid facts as stated hereinabove, the writ petitioner has now come up to this Court for a direction upon the respondents to release the consigned goods in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on the writ application which was moved for release of the consigned goods, which were shipped from London to Calcutta on the basis of the same contract dated 22nd January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture were released by the authorities on the basis of the order dated 5th December, 1986 and also on the basis of subsequent orders in respect of similar goods, I do not find any reason not to pass a similar order today on the basis of the direction made by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ application. 10.It is true that the application for modification and/or variation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid writ application was made at the instance of the Customs Authorities, but unfortunately this application stood dismissed in the year 1990 as nobody appeared to press the application for modification before the learned Single Judge. It is also true that the application for recall of that order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were involved in the earlier writ petition and therefore, it is not open in the mouth of the Customs Authorities to say that the order directing release of the Goods consigned should be modified, be varied even on the facts alleged is the present application, I am unable to find that the facts stated in the application constitute sufficient cause for non apperance on the date the application was dismissed for default. 12.In support of the contention that the delay in filing the present application for recall should be condoned in exercise of my power, as, according to the learned Counsel for the Customs Authorities, sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing the present application, reliance was placed in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered, but taking overall view of the matter, I am of the view that delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 13th November, 1990 cannot be condoned as no sufficient cause has been shown by the Customs Authorities for such condonation. 16.Since the consigned goods are lying in the bonded warehouse since 1987 without any use and considering the order passed by this Court previously which were accepted by the Customs Authorities in the past, I do not find any reason to hold that the order that was passed by the learned Single Judge in the other writ application of similar nature should not be passed in this writ application. 17.Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The Customs Authorities are directed to rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
