2024 (11) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has also objected the adjournment request mentioning that there have been more than 20 adjournments already on record. It is also observed that vide order dated 08.03.2024 following the observations therein one more adjournment was granted but with the directions of one last opportunity and the clarification that in case of subsequent absence of the appellant, the case would not warrant subsequent adjournment in the matter and the matter shall be decided on merits. The relevant para of the order reads as follows: "4. From the aforesaid it is evident that repeated adjournments have been allowed to the appellant, essentially citing that the arguing counsel was un-well (suffering from acute Asthama) or in personal difficulty. Under t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to not to release the detained goods, in the writ filed by the Micromax company. However, the appellants had already got the goods released on the basis of a back dated forged 'Out of Charge' order. Resultantly, present is the clear case of fraud. Hence, there is no infirmity in the findings in order under challenge. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed on merits as well as for want of prosecution. 3. After hearing those arguments and perusing the entire record of the appeal including the reply of the appellant as was filed to the show cause notice and the grounds of appeal, I observe and hold as follows: 3.1 The importer M/s. Joon Exim filed a Bill of Entry No. 4062087 dated 12.12.2013 through their CHA M/s. Swati Enterprises for custom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leased the consignment. I also observe that the original adjudicating authority has meticulously examined the records and has held that it is a case where a consignment of mobile phones contained in 158 packets was imported vide Bill of Entry No. 4062087 dated 12.12.2013. However, out of this consignment, on account of objection of M/s. Micromax that the 4500 numbers of Micromax X1i Brand Mobile Phones were bearing duplicate IMEI numbers, those 4500 Micromax X1i brand mobile phones contained in 75 packets were detained and ordered to be kept in the Public Bonded Warehouse under Section 49 of Customs Act, 1962 and rest of the consignment contained in 83 packets was part released for which as "Out of Charge" Order No. 2010245322 dated 13.01.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....admission that release of goods from the warehouse on 11.07.2014 on the basis of the copy of 'Out of Charge' order dated 13.01.2014 is unauthorized removal on the basis of unauthorized documents. He also acknowledged that date on 'Out of Charge' paper has not been checked properly which has been a mistake on his part while ordering Shri Kripal to release the warehoused goods. This is also coming apparent from his statement that after the impugned transaction appellants have never warehouse the goods of CHA M/s. Swati Enterprises/importer M/s. Joon Exim. The said Shri Kripal also vide his statement has admitted of committing mistake of clearing the consignment from the warehouse without checking the documents properly. The admissions are the....