TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (7) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....In October 1985, petitioners entered into a contract with a German Supplier for purchase of 300 Kgs. of Cephalexin Monohydrate powder (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as `the vital drug'). The said drug is a life-saving drug importable under OGL. It was importable, free of duty. Under the said contract dated October 10, 1985 with the German Supplier of repute, payment was to be made by the petitioners vide irrevocable letter of credit opened by the petitioners through their Bankers on October 17, 1985. The goods were imported by Air on 1st November, 1985. On 2nd November, 1985 petitioners filed their Bill of Entry for home consumption. On the basis of the Delivery Order issued by their Bankers, petitioners applied for del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ously, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex issued a notice alleging that the petitioners have not produced end-use consumption Certificate and demanded Rs. 6,94,260/- on the ground that petitioners have violated conditions of Bond under which petitioners had undertaken to use the imported material for manufacture of life-saving drug. Being aggrieved by Order dated 2nd December, 1986 and notice dated 29th November, 1986, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4.Mr. Sancheti, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the present case, the Order passed by respondent No. 2, dated 2nd December, 1986 was without any basis. He pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that petitioners had colluded wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the Collector of Customs has made no reference to the remaining 100 Kgs. and no reasons have been given for not granting clearance of the said goods to the extent of 100 Kgs. In fact, subsequent to the filing of the Petition, there is no trace of a portion of the goods. Mr. Bulchandani, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the Collector of Customs has given good reasons for coming to the conclusion that there was collusion between Foreign Supplier and the petitioners and, therefore, he was right in passing the impugned Order dated 2nd December, 1986. Mr. Bulchandani further contended that the petitioners did not obtain end-use consumption Certificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rote letters to the German Supplier who agreed to the re-shipment of the goods. In the above set of circumstances, the impugned Order passed by the Collector is liable to be set aside on the ground that there is no basis for recording the findings of collusion against the petitioners. Normally, we would have directed the petitioners to go in Appeal, but the Petition is pending in this Court from 1987 and in the circumstances, we have gone into the facts of the case. 6.We also find merit in the contention of the petitioners that under the above circumstances, the Assistant Collector of Customs could not have called upon the petitioners to pay entire Customs duty amounting to Rs. 6,94,260/- for not producing end-use consumption Certificate....