2019 (1) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd household goods under the Exts.P1, P1(a), and P1(b) documents to the third respondent. He sent those goods through the second respondent, who holds the Import-Export Code. 2. The goods reaching India, the Additional Commissioner of Customs suspected undervaluation and detained them at Cochin Port. As per the arrangement, the second respondent ought to have ensured the release of the goods and handed them over to the third respondent, after complying with the statutory requirements. But differences arose between the second and third respondents. 3. The petitioner further claims that he has exported the goods from Dubai with a credit facility to the third respondent. That is, the consignee must pay to the consignor the consideration ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urned the matter for this day. Today, the learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that all the records reflect the second respondent as the consignee; so the Department cannot deliver the goods to the third respondent, even if he is willing to comply with the statutory demands, besides paying the consignor. 7. The second respondent's counsel submits that its proprietor is a school dropout and knows nothing about the transaction. According to him, he was duped into accepting the third respondent's proposal for import. As seen from the second respondent's counteraffidavit, he distributes the blame all around, including on an Advocate at Thrissur. This advocate is alleged to have secured signed documents and cheques from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... matter the Department must probe into. 12. At any rate, before the proceedings under the Ext.P3 conclude and a probe, if any, into the misuse of I-E Code gets launched, keeping the goods in the Port would be commercially inexpedient; either the consignor or the consignee will end up paying huge demurrages. Under these circumstances, this Court reckons that the third respondent's proposal is feasible. 13. I acknowledge the difficulty the Department has expressed: as the ostensible consignee is the second respondent, the Department could release the goods only in its favour subject to the proceedings it has already initiated under the Ext.P3. 14. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with the following direct....