9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Despite the submissions made by the parties, we do not propose to assess the evidence ourselves. We accordingly, set aside the decision of the High Court and remand the matter back to the appropriate authorities in the Customs Department for the purpose of determining the issue whether the title to the goods in question had passed from the respondent to M/s. Rahul Associates. In the event it is found that the title had not passed, the respondent will be entitled to re-export the same subject to payment of such charges etc. which are rightfully leviable in respect of the goods. If the goods are found to belong to M/s. Rahul Associates, the respondent's claim for re-export must be rejected and it will be open to the Department to take appropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egitimate dues. The High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar & Anr. reported in [1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) = 1992 (2) SCC 66]. In that case this Court was considering the action taken by the Customs Authorities under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. This Court found as a fact that the property in the goods had not passed on to the importer. In the circumstances, the owners/exporters of the goods were permitted to re-export the goods subject to the payment of all legal charges. 4. It is clear that the decision turned on the question whether property in the goods brought into the country had passed on to the importer or not. It was recognised that in certain cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants that the first consignment was grossly undervalued. Proceedings had been commenced under the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the first consignment and ultimately by an order of adjudication dated 31st May, 2001 it was found that M/s. Rahul Associates was liable to pay customs duty of more than Rs. 9 lakhs of which the customs duty of only about Rs. 4 lakhs had been paid. After adjusting this amount the difference is, according to the appellants, recoverable by the appellants from M/s. Rahul Associates by sale of the second consignment being the goods in question under Section 142(1)(b) of the Customs Act. 6. Section 142(1)(b) of the Act would come into operation provided that goods in question belong to M/s. Rahul Associate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
