TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules, 1966. 2.The applicant had imported 59 jumbo rolls of Photographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive in January, 1989. He filed the bill of entry on 11-1-1989 for clearance of the said goods. The goods were not cleared by the customs authorities as they had some doubt regarding its correct classification and entitlement to the benefit of exemption of customs duty and countervailing duty under the notifications mentioned in the bill of entry. That ultimately led to issuance of show cause notice on 14-8-1989 for confiscation of the said goods on the grounds that there was misdeclaration of description in the bill of entry for the purpose of classification and availing of exemption and the goods were not eligible for import under the O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the goods were not mis-declared by the appellant and they were also eligible for import under OGL. This Court further held that for these reasons the goods imported by the appellant were not liable to confiscation and the impugned orders passed by the Collector and CEGAT were illegal. Both the appeals were therefore allowed. 5.What is now contended by learned senior Counsel Mr. Dave in these applications is that the order of confiscation having been set aside the respondent is liable to return the goods to the applicant. He also submitted that the respondent should not have, without obtaining the order of this Court, sold away the goods during the pendency of the appeals. Since the respondent had wrongfully prevented clearance of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amages for the damage to the goods and loss caused to it as a result of illegal retention of the goods by the respondent. We have referred to above how the applicant was prevented by the respondent and the Hindustan Photo Films from redeeming/obtaining those goods. The goods having been sold away the respondent is now not in a position to return the goods to the applicant. As this situation has been brought about by the respondent by his own acts he cannot now escape from the liability of returning to the applicant the money value of the said goods. If without challenging the first order passed on 31-1-1989 and the interim order passed by the Gujarat High Court in favour of the applicant on 27-4-1989 the respondent had returned the goods on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other hand, it was contended by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Additional Solicitor General that the import of the goods was by the applicants and as soon as the said goods landed on the land mass of India proper amount of duty, became payable thereon. In our opinion, Mr. Vaidyanathan, is right in his submission particularly, when full impact has to be given to the order passed by us declaring retention and confiscation of the goods to be illegal. Mr. C.S. Vaidynathan, learned Additional Solicitor General, however, further submitted that value of the goods as shown in the import documents was only Rs. 33.04 lacs and as the duty and the Warehousing charges payable are more than the said amount, the applicant is not entitled to recover anyt....