9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43 (IGM No. 497/96), Details were also furnished against line No. 275 of the said IGM for 2,400 bags STC Citirc Acid Mono BP 88. The vessel arrived Madras on 27-4-96. The three containers were moved from the Madras Harbour to the Container Freight Station of M/s. Container Corporatin of India at Tondiarpet, Madras on 4-5-96 at the request of the Container Agent dated 30-4-96, The Container Agent vide their letter dated 18-6-96 requested for permission to re-export the containers on ground that "the consignee as per the Bill of Lading is not available". In the light of such a request after a very long time of the arrival of the cargo in India, the case was taken up for investigation. 3.On scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the goods were shipped by M/s. Da Hua International Trading Co., Hongkong from Shanghai (China) to M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co. Pte. Ltd., Madras. However, no specific address of M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was available in the Bill of Lading. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Madras was requested to verify and inform whether there was any firm by name "Ganapathi Trading Co. Pte. Ltd." registered with them and allotted Importer Exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulations) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962. 4.As the import has been made by a non existing and fictitious firm in contravention of the provisions of Section 7 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulations) Act, 1992, the importers were issued with a show cause notice stating as to why the 60 MTs. of Citric Acid Mono BP 88 valued at Rs. 25,23,600/- (CIF) imported by a non existing and fictitious company should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the violations of the provisions of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (DR) Act, 1992 and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on them for having rendered the goods liable for confiscation. However, the same was returned back without any one receiving it. Also there was no response when the same notice was displayed on the Notice Board for 15 days. Thereafter M/s. Rank Associates, Advocates, Madras have submitted a representation to the Additional Commissioner on 7-8-96 as stated, they represented M/s. Peer Chemical & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore and sought permission to re-export the goods and also requested for an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is established beyond doubt that the imports have been made contrary to law. Supreme Court in the case of Sampat Raj Dugar - [1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] have clearly held that in such cases the claim of the supplier does not remain bona fide. Based on this judgment the CEGAT in the case of Uniflex Cables Ltd. - [1995 (77) E.L.T. 737 (Tribunal)] have held that were the goods are supplied by the foreign supplier to a fictitious firm, transfer of goods to another buyer in India would not be permissible. Such a decision would be equally applicable to the foreign supplier of goods even though the claims to be the importer in this case as he has retired the documents from the bank. The fact that the suppliers did not take precaution of enquiring about the import/export code number from the buyers shows their mala fide and render the goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 111(d). Mala fides of the supplier are also confirmed from the fact that the import manifest is not complete and correct. The only source for preparation of IGM is Bill of Lading. In the present case the Bill of Lading does not have address of buyer. Inspite of that, address of the buyer appears against Line No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Nos. 273 to 343 carried by the vessel M.V, Kotaria Voy. 143 (IGM No. 497/96). The vessel arrived at Madras Port on 27-4-96. The three containers were moved from the Madras Harbour to the Container Freight Station of M/s. Container Corporation of India at Tondiarpet, Madras on 4-5-96 at the request of the Container Agent dated 30-4-96. The container agent vide their letter dated 18-6-96 (that is to say that almost after two months of the arrival of the vessel) requested the Custom authorities for permission to re-export the containers on the ground that the consignee as per the Bill of Lading is not available. It was in the light of such unusual request, that too after a very long time of the arrival of the cargo in India, the case was taken up for investigation by the Custom authorities in India. To support the documents, it was found that the goods were shipped by M/s. Da Hua International Trading Co., Hong Kong from Shanghai (China) to M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Madras. No specific address of M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was furnished in the Bill of Lading as notifying party. In the Bill of Lading No. HJSCSHA 112961503, dated 13-4-96 issued by M/s. Hanjin Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uine importer/exporter and who had not registered with the DGFT and were not allotted any import/export code to the effect that they were bona fide importer/exporter in India, the goods were examined in detail and were seized in the premises of representative of the Container Agent with independent eye witnesses on 1-7-96. When the local agent of the Container Agency were asked to produce whether they have any invoice, packing list and other documents, etc., that too after almost two months from the date of import, they produced three pages of fax message said to have been received from M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore who, as per the fax message, has effected the supply of goods to India at the instance of one M/s. Ganapathi Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The Container Agent on calling by the Custom authorities also produced certain documents said to have been received from one M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore stating that M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Singapore had opened a letter of credit through M/s. Habeeb Bank, Singapore requesting the Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore to ship the goods covered by the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that they have obtained documents from the bank and approached with documents for permission to de-stuff the containers. Since M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore were not figuring in the Bill of Lading as shipper/exporter and since the goods were exported by Da Hua International Co. Ltd., Hongkong as per the Bill of Lading, therefore vide letter dated 19-8-96 the Additional Commissioner informed that show cause notice was issued to the persons concerned though the Advocates claimed that M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore were the persons concerned as they held the documents for the import of the goods into India, show cause notice also should have been issued to them before confiscating the goods. The Advocates were also informed that the goods were already auctioned and the sale proceeds realised. In view of this, they then requested to hand over the sale proceeds to them under provisions of Custom law. 11. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original No. 23/97, dated 19-3-97 after going through the facts of the case and submissions made by Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., (who claimed to be the exporter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from one M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore stating that M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Singapore have opened a letter of credit through M/s. Habeeb Bank, Singapore, and they had requested M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd., Singapore to ship the goods covered by the notice to M/s. Ganapathi Trading Co, Pvt. Ltd., Madras and to negotiate the documents through M/s. Overseas Union Bank Ltd., Singapore whereas Letter of credit was opened through M/s. Habeeb Bank, Singapore. It was also claimed that M/s. Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd. have effected the supply of these materials through M/s. Da Hua International Trading Co. Ltd., Hongkong. We find from the Bill of Lading dated 13-4-96 that goods have been shipped/exported by Da Hua International Co. Ltd. and the documents to be retired through Habeeb Bank Ltd., Singapore. 14. Therefore, there are a lot of contradiction and there is no record to show that they are the shipper/exporter and hence can be treated as owner of the goods within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. Be that as it may, the goods have been guaranteed to the exporter/shipper whoever he was or to the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
