TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt thereof. 3.The facts involved in the dispute in a nutshell are thus :- The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Laws of Singapore and are, inter alia, exporters of various types of electronic goods all over the world. The petition is moved through the said company's constituted attorney in this Court. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the authorities under the Customs Act. Respondent No. 5 is the Officer of Mumbai Port Trusts and exercises his powers under the jurisdiction under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It is the case of the petitioners that they had consigned a consignment of various types of electronic components to one M/s. Rahul Associates, which was shipped from Sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 30-1-2000 addressed to the Customs authorities requested for re-export of the goods as the consignee mentioned in IGM, M/s. Rahul Associates clearly declared their intention not to clear the goods and since the petitioners continued to be the owners of the goods, it was, inter alia, requested that the goods may be allowed to be re-exported back to the petitioners and the petitioners were ready and willing to bear the necessary expenses for the same. However, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioners and it was apprehended that steps would be taken for auction of the goods under the provisions of Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the petitioners, M/s. Rahul Associates had neither filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods vests in M/s. Rahul Associates, and when they are not coming forward to claim the goods, the respondents would be justified in taking steps under the provisions of Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.With regard to the first contention raised on behalf of the respondents, as can be seen from the affidavit-in-reply, a case of undervaluation was booked against M/s. Rahul Associates, who were engaged for import of various electronic goods in respect of consignment which was cleared on 30-6-2000, and necessary steps were taken and proceeding is going on in that respect. Subsequent to the arrival of the first consignment, on 10-7-2000 the impugned consignment of electronic items, which was shipped by the petitioners from Singapore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest to the goods nor have presented Bill of Entry or any import document claiming the goods from the date of detention and hence it would be not legal and proper on the part of the respondents to detain the goods which are abandoned by the consignee. 7.The second contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that of issue of ownership of the goods. According to them, once the Bill of Lading was sent in the name of M/s. Rahul Associates, the ownership of the goods has been transferred from the exporter to the intended importer consignee and, therefore, the petitioner-exporter can neither claim the ownership of the goods nor can claim re-export on that basis. However, the documents filed on record tell a different story. The record....