1991 (7) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oners filed bill of entry for home consumption in respect of the import on November 20, 1963. The goods had arrived in Bombay Port on June 7, 1963. On scrutiny of the bill of entry for home consumption, it was noticed that the goods had been shipped on March 13, 1963. i.e., after a year from the date the goods are purported to have crossed the Hungarian boarder. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, thereupon commenced proceedings for confiscation and for levy of penalty as prescribed under the provisions of the Customs Act as the import was clearly in violation of the conditions of the licence. 2.The importer claimed that the goods were dispatched by the foreign supplier from Budapest to Stettin Port prior to February 28, 1962 and the goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the conclusion of the Collector that the consignment did not cross Hungarian border before February 28, 1962 and, therefore, the import was in violation of the mandatory condition of the import licence. The decision of the two authorities is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.Shri Gandhy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the two authorities below failed to attach proper weight to the Cross Border Certificate relied upon by the importer. The learned Counsel also urged that the burden was heavily upon the Department to establish that the condition under the import licence was not adhered to and the Department has failed to discharge that burden. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsignment by road, then nothing was easier than to produce the delivery receipt. The foreign supplier would have also supplied gate passes to the importer to establish that the consignment was dispatched prior to February 28, 1962. Shri Gandhy relied upon letter dated June 14, 1962 from the foreign supplier and in which it is claimed that the Forwarding Agent in Port Stettin had sent the message that the consignment has not arrived which was dispatched in February, 1962. It is impossible to conclude from this statement in the letter that the foreign supplier had indeed forwarded the consignment prior to February 28, 1962. The importer had addressed letter dated March 22, 1962 to the foreign supplier demanding that the document should be for....