TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods under Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 or under Section 3 of FTDRA (Foreign Trade Development & Regulation Act), 1992 and when the goods were freely importable under OGL? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon'ble CESTAT erred in denying the request for grant of value of goods with penal interest when the goods were illegally confiscated and illegally disposed of without notice to the appellant and when the matter was under appeal? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant is entitled to equivalent quantity of goods or current market value of goods when the confiscation of goods is not sustainable, and the goods stand illegally disposed by Authorities? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Lower Authorities were not justified in denying the request for re-shipment of goods when the goods were not prohibited goods? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT erred in upholding levy of penalty on the appellant?" 3. We have gone through the order passed by the CESTAT as well as the Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f title and that the shipper can pass the title which he possesses to someone else by endorsing and handing over the Bill of Lading to that other person. This endorsement may be made in the following manner, namely, (a) by a special endorsement to a named person such as Deliver to the order of John Smith and then signed. The property can then pass to that person; or (b) by means of a general endorsement whereby the shipper signs only this name on the back of the Bill of Lading, this being the usual method with an 'order' bill, which automatically passes the property with the delivery of the document. When a Bill of Lading has been made out to order it is known as negotiable and the shipper passes the document only upon payment by the buyer or consignee. 131. Hence, in these circumstance where the Bill of Lading have been made 'To Order' and duly signed by the shipper, the ownership passes with the delivery of the document. It is not in dispute that the Bills of Lading were delivered to the importers in this case. Hence, M/s. Donald Mcarthy Pte. Ltd. had no title to the goods and cannot ask for reshipment of the same. 132. In so far as re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Didwania's company are the only importers in this case. Viewed in the background of undervaluation in the past cases one cannot escape the conclusion that a fraud was sought to be perpetrated by M/s. Donald & Mcarthy Pte. Ltd. by supplying goods to the fictitious companies owned and controlled by other members of Didwania family. It is in these circumstances that one has to have a recourse to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1998 (99) ELT 202 (SC)]." 4. These findings of fact in the Order in Original have in fact been upheld by the CESTAT in the impugned order. The CESTAT noted all the facts and arguments canvassed on behalf of the Appellant and thereafter gave its findings from paragraph 5 onwards of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order of CESTAT is reproduced hereunder:- "5. We heard both sides and carefully perused the records. We find that in the present case during investigations, it was found that the importing firm did not have IEC Code except in case of M/s Western Metal Corporation which lately was cancelled by the DGFT. Further that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was illegal. 6. Further even though in the past imports have been permitted in name of some of the these non existent firms but those clearance do not preclude the department from confiscation of present consignments of goods as the impugned goods were attempted to be cleared in violation of law. In such facts the case laws cited by the Appellant in their support are not applicable in the present case. Further we find that the reshipment of the goods requested by M/s Donald Macarthy could not have been permitted as no evidence was produced that the importing firms had refused to clear the goods. The title of the goods was transferred to the fictitious firms and that too not by any legal banking channel. In those circumstances M/s Donald Macarthy did not remain the owner of the goods and their request for re-shipment could not have been allowed. It is also apparent that in absence of IEC and non existent firms the goods had become prohibited thereby attracting provisions of Section 111(d). We find that in case of Sampat Raj Dugar 1992 (58) ELT 163 SC cited by the Appellant the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the importers were valid and the imports were valid. Hence the Ho....