9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by them. The Facts : 3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is set out in the petition in detail. However, for the purpose of deciding this petition suffice it to say that the petitioners were the agents operating under the letter of authority dated 11th November, 1982 given by M/s. Royal Fabrics, Bangalore, who were holding advance import licence bearing No. 0336959; dated 18th August, 1982 authorising them to import 4,233 kgs. of Mulberry Raw Silk of any grade other than dupion yarn valued at Rs. 6,77,376/- under the duty exemption scheme. 4. The petitioners operating under the aforesaid letter of authority placed an order to import goods, namely, raw silk and under terms of contract. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid order of Additional Collector, petitioners preferred appeal to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal (CEGAT), the respondent No. 3 herein. 9. The CEGAT, after hearing the appeal, was pleased to confirm the order of the Additional Collector with small modification; whereby redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-. CEGAT held that the licence ought to have been valid at the time of shipment of goods. Since the licence has been cancelled on 16th February, 1983 i.e. before the goods were shipped, shipment date being 24th February, 1983, the import was not valid. Thus, it was held that at the time of shipment, there was no valid licence with the importer of goods. 10. The petitioners, thereafter, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Bill of Lading was produced before the Customs Authorities showing the date of shipment of goods as 12th February, 1983. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the aforesaid orders. Submission and consideration : 14. The sole contention advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the goods were shipped on 12th February, 1983 i.e. prior to 16th February, 1983, the date on which the licence was cancelled and, therefore, the import could not have been held to be bad and illegal, consequently, the order of confiscation could not have been passed. 15. The submission of the petitioners is misplaced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
