1. The parties are diamond merchants. The plaintiff carries on business in Belgium. The defendant carries on business in Mumbai and Surat. There have been transactions for the sale of diamonds between the parties.

2. The plaintiff sold certain polished diamonds to the defendant under 4 invoices dated 25th January, 2011, 26th January, 2011, 31st January, 2011 and 4rh February, 2011. The invoices were accompanied by 4 shipping instructions, 4 export documents and 4 airway bills. The goods were sent to the defendant in Surat, India.

3. These goods have been accepted by the defendant. It is stated that the goods were transported to Mumbai. The defendant has claimed that it has returned the goods to the plaintiff under its jangad/challan dated 4th February, 2011 to the plaintiff's address in Mumbai. The defendant claims that since the plaintiff had no office in Mumbai, but its partner only resided in Mumbai the diamonds could not be imported in Mumbai itself and hence the plaintiff requested the defendant to permit the plaintiff to use its name and address for the purpose of allowing import the goods by the plaintiff's partner. The defendant claims commission for such service, but ha