9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms duty at Madras. The goods were cleared in December 1978 and transported from Madras to Bangalore on or about 23-12-1978. It transpires that there was some obstruction put forth by the Customs Authorities for the clearance of the goods and after considerable correspondence they were permitted to be cleared and in the meantime demurrage was liable to be paid on account of the fact that the goods were not cleared within the time premitted by the Port Authorities. However, the Port Authorities, in the circumstances of the case, collected only 25 per cent of the demurrage charges in accordance with the provisions in that behalf. 3. It transpires that the Customs Authorities had taken a guarantee in a sum of Rs. 20,100/- before premitting the goods to be cleared. The petitioner also paid harbour charges amounting to Rs. 11,887.10. The goods arrived in Bangalore on 4-1-1979 and were subsequently removed to Bylanarasapura, the place where the petitioner was residing. 4. From the show cause notice issued it transpires that about 5 gunny covered bales were recovered from the shop owned by Syed Abid Hussain at No. 40, Corporation Market, N.R. Road Cross, Bangalore. Some statements of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that there has been no violation of any provision of the Customs Act and the notice Exhibit-A has been issued with a view to harass him, as according to the petitioner even at the initial stage, the Customs Authorities were putting forth obstructions and only on the petitioner approaching the higher authorities was he able to get the goods cleared, and even then not without giving the guarantee. The contention of the petitioner is that the show cause notice has been issued in the said background and cannot be said to be justified on the facts of the case. 6. Apparently, consequent on the appraisal of the issue of the show cause notice by the Customs Authorities, the second respondent also issued a notice contending that the demurrage charges had been waived to certain extent and in view of the notice issued by the Customs Authorities the remission of demurrage charges was not correct and demanding from the petitioner the charges that had been remitted. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no basis to make the demand as the purpose for which the goods were imported had not at all been violated and at any event, the second respondent was not entitled under any provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods had arrived in Bangalore only on 4-1-1979 and there was ample time for the petitioner to distribute the goods to the poor and needy. According to the petitioner, he had distributed about 53 bales. The certificates issued as per Exhibit-E series support this contention. There has been no specific averment in respect of this distribution apart from stating that the revenue authorities had told the Customs Authorities that to their knowledge there was no distribution, within a period of 15 days prior to 11-1-1979. Respondent No. 3 who has been impleaded as party has not filed any counter-affidavit and has not denied the averments made by the petitioner in this behalf. It cannot therefore be said that there has been any contravention so far as 53 bales that have already been distributed and the 47 bales found in the possession of the petitioner on 11-1-1979 are concerned. These 2 quantities when added come to 100 bales. But, according to respondent No. 1 about 5 bales of goods were found in the shop of Syed Abid Hussain. The question whether these 5 bales had been sold by the petitioner as alleged by the first respondent is a matter which has got to be enquired into by the Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest of the quantity of the goods imported, except to the extent of 5 bales seized from the shop premises of Syed Abid Hussain, would be without any basis and untenable. Claim for payment of duty in respect of the goods in the possession of the petitioner and the other goods claimed to have been distributed except in regard to 5 bales aforementioned, is also untenable and therefore notice, Exhibit-A, except in so far as 5 bales of goods seized from the shop of Syed Abid Hussain is hereby quashed. The first respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in so far as 5 bales of goods seized from the shop of Syed Abid Hussain is concerned and the petitioner shall put forth his contentions before the concerned Authorities. So far as the quantity of 5 bales of goods is concerned the entire matter is left open, it being made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the matter after the conclusion of the enquiry in regard to the 5 bales, in accordance with law. 12.In the show cause notice, a claim for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is also made. It appears that "the act alleged against the petitioner would not come within the ambit of the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
