1986 (1) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n October 15,1979 and February 1980 the petitioners presented as many as 26 bills of entry for effecting clearances of goods for home consumption. The petitioners were claiming that the correct classification fell under Tariff Item 73.03/.05, while it was the claim of the Department that the goods were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item 73.15(1 )(2). Ultimately, the goods were cleared on May 28,1981 after the petitioners paid the duty as demanded by the Department. In subsequent proceedings adopted by the petitioners, it was found that the claim of the petitioners was right and the duty demanded by the Department was excessive and orders of refund were passed. 2. The petitioners sought detention certificates as according to the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment to issue detention certificate from the date of lodgment of bill of entry till March 5, 1980 is without any rational and that action is required to be corrected. Prior to admission of the petition, Shri M. Velluswami, Assistant Collector, filed affidavit dated July 7,1983, inter alia, claiming that the goods could not be cleared from the date of lodgment of bill of entries till March 5, 1980 due to the delay on the part of the petitioners in representing the bills. The return claims that the bill of entry on presentation is returned to the importer for reloading after completing the formalities and the petitioners in the present case did not represent for the considerable period. After admission of the petition, Shri S. Ramesh, Assi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent to hold that the bills were in fact returned back to the petitioners. Secondly, Shri Lokur states that the Department does not maintain any register as to the date on which the bills were presented and/or do not possess any record to indicate that the bills were in fact returned back to the importer for compliance of formalities. Thirdly, In paragraph 7(A) of the petition the petitioners have specifically claimed that all throughout the bills of entries were lying with the Customs Department and the suggestion to the contrary in the return is untrue. The petitioners further claimed that arrangements of inspection of goods were made immediately after filing the bills which were in the custody of the Customs Department, but no steps were ....