9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign parties of Singapore. Those were purchased from the warehouses of London Metal Exchange and were of Indian origin. The vessel carrying aluminium ingots arrived at Calcutta Port in November, 2000. (b) The goods were in four consignments and the petitioners filed two Bills of Entries for the two of those consignments on the basis of the non-negotiable copies of Bill of Lading. The Customs Authority, however, did not allow release of the aforesaid consignments under duty-free scheme on the ground that those goods were of Indian origin and were necessarily dutiable. Since those two consignments for which Bills of Entry were filed were not released, the petitioners did not file Bills of Entry in respect of the third and fourth cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority refused to release the goods in favour of the second writ petitioner on the ground of pendency of the first writ application over the said subject matter. Hence, the second writ application was filed by the second writ petitioner praying a direction for release of the goods in its favour. 6. Therefore, so far the first writ application is concerned the question is whether the writ petitioners are entitled to release of the consignments without payment of duty by virtue of Advance License in their favour. 7. There is no dispute that the writ petitioners had been importing aluminium ingots duty-free against the Advance License. On 11th January, 2002, the writ petitioners filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the first two consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC 1893, (ii) Sandeep Agarwal v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 528, (iii) Enterprise International Limited v. Collector of Customs, 1994 (69) E.L.T. 453, (iv) Motisons Internationals v. CC, Cochin reported in 1998 (74) ECR 63, (v) Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 13, (vi) Arviva Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 135. 10. This application is opposed by the Customs Authority and according to Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, the Policy Circular dated 10th January, 2002, issued under Para 11.11 of Exim Policy 1997-2002 is binding upon the petitioners and such policy af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is the subject matter of the first writ application by virtue of subsequent Bill of Lading acquired by such petitioner. There is no dispute that initially agreement was entered into between the foreign exporter and the first writ petitioners over the second consignment. The private respondent in the second writ application, which is a unit of the writ petitioners in the first writ application has admitted that when they offered the price of the goods before the bank for getting negotiable Bill of Entry, by that time the bank had already returned the original document, as a result, the writ petitioners could not get the negotiable Bill of Lading. Therefore, it is clear that although an agreement was entered into between the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond writ petitioner cannot be taken away. Admittedly, those writ petitioners did not make payment of the money by virtue of agreement and as such, they had no title to the property. The foreign exporter has subsequently transferred the goods in favour of the second writ petitioner. The moment original Bill of Lading has been placed before the Customs Authority, it is its duty to release the goods if the second writ petitioner pays all customs duty in accordance with law. Even if the foreign exporter has gone under liquidation, it is for the official liquidator to collect the money paid by the second writ petitioner through the banker of the foreign exporter. Till today, the official liquidator has not lodged any claim over the second consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
