TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Unit Price of U.S. Dollars 6.95 per piece and 20,000 pieces of gents shirts at the unit price of U.S. Dollars 6.90 per piece. 2.It is submitted that the petitioner while acting on the said contract intended to ship at the first instance a quantity of 18,750 pieces. The petitioner drew 4 invoices on the foreign buyer. The petitioner has filed 4 shipping bills between the period 31-3-2002 to 2-4-2002. It is also incorporated in the petition that since the shipping bills were filed for obtaining the benefits of drawback, the officer in exercise of judicial powers vested in him fixed the price of the goods at the rate of US $ 6 per piece so that the drawback can be calculated on that basis. It is submitted that since the goods were to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring on 23rd May, 2002. The petition was adjourned to 30-5-2002 for completing pleadings. In pursuance to the directions of the Court, Mr. M.K. Arora, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that this petition suffers from concealment of material facts and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The goods of the petitioner being readymade garments which were sought to be exported have been seized by the respondents under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The respondents had adequate reasons to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 113(ii) of the Customs Act, because the garments were found to be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investigation, despite a number of summons sent by the respondents. The petitioner company has chosen to approach the Court instead of cooperating with the department and joining investigation. It is also mentioned in the reply that goods are actually not going to the buyers in Australia. In case the petitioner has such pressure from the so-called buyer, he should cooperate with the department, present correspondence so that the credentials could be verified. 11.Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently argued that this petition suffers from concealment of material facts and a serious effort has been made to mislead this Court and this petition deserves to be dismissed only on that gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by him on both the pages of panchnama. This petition has been filed on 13-5-2002, the petitioner deliberately did not mention the reasons why the goods were detained or seized. All these facts were mentioned in the panchnama. It is admitted in the petition that the petitioner had came to know through Customs House Agent that at Mumbai, the goods which were to be loaded in the ship have been detained/seized under the instructions of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He submitted that it is wholly inconceivable that the petitioner did not know why the goods have been detained and seized when it is categorically mentioned in the panchnama that the goods were found to be sub-standard, re-labelled and not conforming to the declared value of US $ 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u that it is not possible to attend your office on the date and time required therein the summons as we have already have got prior appointment from our overseas buyer who came to India for executing further export orders. Therefore, it is our humble submission to you to please adjourn the matter for a next date. Thanking you, Yours faithfully for B.G. (OVERSEAS) CORPORATION PROPRIETOR" 15.Mr. Bhushan has also placed on record, another letter dated 6-5-2002 sent by the petitioner in pursuance to the summons dated 26-4-2002 in which the petitioner has again expressed its inability to attend the hearing on 6-5-2002. The same reads as under : "Dated : 6th May, 2002 To The Superintendent of Customs (Prev.) Ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot like to examine various submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the judgments cited at the bar. 18.The Courts have repeatedly observed that those who approach the Court must come to the Court with clean hands. 19.In Rajabhai v. Vasudev reported as AIR 1964 SC 345, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that a party who approaches the Court knowing or having reason to believe that if the true facts were brought to its notice this Court would not grant special leave, withholds that information and persuades this Court to grant leave to appeal is guilty of conduct forfeiting all claims to the exercise of discretion in his favour. It is his duty to state facts which may reasonably have a bearing on the ....