9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 pieces of gents shirts at the unit price of U.S. Dollars 6.90 per piece. 2.It is submitted that the petitioner while acting on the said contract intended to ship at the first instance a quantity of 18,750 pieces. The petitioner drew 4 invoices on the foreign buyer. The petitioner has filed 4 shipping bills between the period 31-3-2002 to 2-4-2002. It is also incorporated in the petition that since the shipping bills were filed for obtaining the benefits of drawback, the officer in exercise of judicial powers vested in him fixed the price of the goods at the rate of US $ 6 per piece so that the drawback can be calculated on that basis. It is submitted that since the goods were to be shipped by sea and the container was to be loaded for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for completing pleadings. In pursuance to the directions of the Court, Mr. M.K. Arora, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that this petition suffers from concealment of material facts and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The goods of the petitioner being readymade garments which were sought to be exported have been seized by the respondents under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The respondents had adequate reasons to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 113(ii) of the Customs Act, because the garments were found to be sub-standard, re-labelled and not conforming to the declared value of the goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny has chosen to approach the Court instead of cooperating with the department and joining investigation. It is also mentioned in the reply that goods are actually not going to the buyers in Australia. In case the petitioner has such pressure from the so-called buyer, he should cooperate with the department, present correspondence so that the credentials could be verified. 11.Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently argued that this petition suffers from concealment of material facts and a serious effort has been made to mislead this Court and this petition deserves to be dismissed only on that ground. 12.The respondents along with the reply have annexed the copy of the panchnama which is Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the reasons why the goods were detained or seized. All these facts were mentioned in the panchnama. It is admitted in the petition that the petitioner had came to know through Customs House Agent that at Mumbai, the goods which were to be loaded in the ship have been detained/seized under the instructions of Respondent Nos. 2 3. He submitted that it is wholly inconceivable that the petitioner did not know why the goods have been detained and seized when it is categorically mentioned in the panchnama that the goods were found to be sub-standard, re-labelled and not conforming to the declared value of US $ 6.95/6.90 per piece. He further submitted that it is also mentioned in the panchnama that the goods have been seized under Section 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overseas buyer who came to India for executing further export orders. Therefore, it is our humble submission to you to please adjourn the matter for a next date. Thanking you, Yours faithfully for B.G. (OVERSEAS) CORPORATION PROPRIETOR" 15.Mr. Bhushan has also placed on record, another letter dated 6-5-2002 sent by the petitioner in pursuance to the summons dated 26-4-2002 in which the petitioner has again expressed its inability to attend the hearing on 6-5-2002. The same reads as under : "Dated : 6th May, 2002 To The Superintendent of Customs (Prev.) Room No. 209, New Customs House Near I.G.I. Airport New Delhi - 110 037 Ref. : Your C. No. VIII(SB)9/10/2002/572, dt : 26-4-2002 Dear Sir, We are in receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt must come to the Court with clean hands. 19.In Rajabhai v. Vasudev reported as AIR 1964 SC 345, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that a party who approaches the Court knowing or having reason to believe that if the true facts were brought to its notice this Court would not grant special leave, withholds that information and persuades this Court to grant leave to appeal is guilty of conduct forfeiting all claims to the exercise of discretion in his favour. It is his duty to state facts which may reasonably have a bearing on the exercise of the discretionary powers of this Court. Any attempt to withhold material information would result in revocation of the order, obtained from this Court. 20.In Har Narain v. Badri Das r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
