TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (5) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Entry on or about 28-9-1976, the value of the cargo (18698.0439 M/tons of urea) was declared on the basis of the fixture notice; (b) subsequently, however, it was noticed that as per the invoice, the C & F price paid was-(i) US $ 119 M.T. for 3902 M/Tons, and (ii) US $ 123 M.T. for 14976.0439 M/Tons, and not US $ 199 M.T. for the whole quantity as erroneously declared in the B/E and forming the basis for the assessment to duty; (c) this apart, the stevedoring charges at Rs. 16 per M.T. were included in the assessable value, notwithstanding that the work of stevedoring was got done departmentally incurring an expenditure of Rs, 1,31,705.30; (d) accordingly, an application for refund dated 21-3-1977 was preferred; (e) in adjud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....true owners by assignment, of the benefits under the contract or otherwise. The B/L dated 22-8-1976 and the invoice dated 24-8-1976, however, show the name of the consignee as the Ministry of Agriculture; (c) in the Bill of Entry dated 24-9-1976 the importer's name was shown as the Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture. The declaration by the Customs House Agent in the B/L was signed by the Senior Dy. Manager of the Appellant; (d) in a letter No. 3-5/74-FA(G), dated 2-5-1975 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation in the Govt. of India, it was inter alia, stated that the Appellant along with the Indian Potash Ltd. "who are handling the fertilizers at ports would accept the customs duty assessment in accordance with rules an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the owner, had at any rate, held himself out to be the importer. 5. Regarding the competence of the appellants to file the refund claims, we are of the view that this matter has been carefully considered and concluded in the earlier orders of the Tribunal, cited supra. An identical preliminary objection raised by the respondents was over-ruled and we respectfully agree with the reasons stated therein. 6. Regarding the main appeal itself we find that the appellants have produced various documents before us which require minute scrutiny before the refund application is disposed of one way or the other. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the authorities below and remand the matter for re-deciding the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely, the consignee); (B) The question of locus standi or the competence of the Appellant to have filed the instant Revision now heard as an Appeal, it may be stated with respect, is a question of pure law not dependent on the determination of any new questions of fact. When a question of law is raised for the first time even in a court of last resort, it is not only competent but expedient in the interests of justice, to entertain the plea. The expediency can be doubted only if the plea cannot be disposed of without deciding nice question of fact in considering which the court of ultimate review is placed in a much less advantageous position, than the courts below. [Lord Watson in (1982) AC 417 - Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be raised. In any view of the matter, the Appellant had been afforded ample opportunity to produce evidence even before us to prove competence in filing the appeal. There is no question, therefore, of any prejudice to the appellant in view of our consideration of the question of competence in the instant appeal before us. (D) There is no question of the Appellant holding out to be the importer [S. 2(26) of the Act] when the importer is actually shown to be the Under Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture in the B/E. (E) Nor can the Appellant really feel aggrieved if he were merely the Customs House Agent as claimed in the B/E. It is only if duly appointed and authorised that, though merely an' agent, the Appellant could have either ap....