2004 (4) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctronic goods at the instance of the respondent. 2. The said goods arrived at the Port at Bombay on 24th July, 2000. The importer was M/s. Rahul Associates but it did not clear the goods. Accordingly a notice was given by the appellants to M/s. Rahul Associates under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 17th January, 2001, M/s. Rahul Associates wrote to the Customs Authorities stating that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent/writ petitioner to re-export the goods on payment of all legitimate dues. The High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar & Anr. reported in [1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) = 1992 (2) SCC 66]. In that case this Court was considering the action taken by the Customs Authorities under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o question of the goods being re-exported at the instance of the foreign exporter. 5. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that in all cases an exporter continues to be owner of the goods merely because the importer does not choose to clear them and in effect abandons them. The issue regarding title to the goods had been squarely raised by the appellants in their....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had been commenced under the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the first consignment and ultimately by an order of adjudication dated 31st May, 2001 it was found that M/s. Rahul Associates was liable to pay customs duty of more than Rs. 9 lakhs of which the customs duty of only about Rs. 4 lakhs had been paid. After adjusting this amount the difference is, according to the appellants, recoverable b....