1985 (8) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tory to manufacture clothes for the purpose of export. It was in the Kandla Free Trade Zone (hereinafter referred to as KFTZ for brevity's sake). The policy of the Government is to allow import of duty-free goods to such people for the purpose of export. The petitioner had started his factory, had imported goods time and again. In the year 1969 when his factory was going on, he had imported two consignments- one of 39 cases and another of 9 cases - which were landed at Bombay. They were to be transhipped to Kandla and road transport was permitted. When the goods reached Kandla, the authorities found that the goods did not conform to the bill of entry in certain respects. A Certificate about the safe arrival of the goods was also not issued,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to export those goods and or manufacture the goods for export, and this situation continued. Mr. Shah initially contended that there was no retention, i.e. seizure of goods, but when his attention was drawn to pp. 46, 79, 97, etc., he did not pursue his contention. Ultimately, the petitioner was given a notice by the authorities under Section 111(c) as to why those goods which were not exported within six months of the entry be not confiscated. As a matter of fact, there was no notification of the Government up to 25th May, 1968, laying down any period for export, but the petitioner was told that whatever   goods that were lying in his factory, either in the manufactured or unmanufactured condition, were liable to confiscation und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the very Customs authorities in which a citizen is not able to carry out that export obligation, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there is wilful default on the part of the would be exporter of the goods. If there is no wilful default, there cannot be any confiscation. Here, curiously enough, the petitioner was completely helpless. By the act of the officers of the Customs Department, he was prevented from manufacturing and/or exporting the goods, and that consequential inability of the petitioner to export the goods has been now made a ground of his being visited with the order of confiscation. Two things cannot stand together, and the only legal outcome would be that the order of confiscation of the petitioner's go....