CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA
K. SANKARARAMAN, T.P. Nambiar, JJ.
Hindusthan Bearing Corporation -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs -Respondent
Order No. 107-Cal/90-107 Appeal Nos. C-438 & 439/88, 107 of 1990, 438 of 1988, 439 of 1988
Decided On : 12-03-1990
T.P. Nambiar, Member (J), J.
1. These are two appeals filed by these appellants against the order passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta in Order No. CAL.I/C. Ex./12/88,
2. The brief facts of the case are that on a specific intelligence regarding despatch of smuggled Ball/Roller bearings from Bombay in the assumed names through M/s. Cromolite Transport Corporation, the officers of D.R.I., Calcutta visited Cromolite Transport Corporation, Calcutta-7 and detained 14(fourteen) consignments under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Enquiries were made both at Bombay and Calcutta. On the basis of results of enquiries the said goods of foreign
On enquiry the purported consignee, M/s. Industrial Bearing Corporation could not be located at Canning Street, Calcutta-7. Hitherto nobody even approached the proper authority to claim the ownership of the said goods. Enquiries taken up at Bombay revealed that both the purported consignees of the goods in question are fictitious. All the goods covering consignment note Nos. 38042 and 38119 were found to be of foreign origin except (1) Norman Bearing 6010-500 J -India-25 pcs. and (2) No. 307 MNW ABC-India-40 pcs. found in two packages as mentioned in relevant inventory, but those Indian Bearings were found in such a manner that the same had concealed the remaining goods of foreign origin in the respective packages.
Enquiries at Bombay revealed that out of the five firms i.e. consignments relating to consignment notes bearing Nos. 38067 dt., 19-1-85 and 38041 dt. 18-1-1985 issued by Omega Trading Corporation, 145, Nurayan Dhrub Street, Bombay-3 were found as fictitious. Similarly, the consignee, Shah
3. Therefore, all the goods covering consignment Note Nos. 38119 and 38042 consigned to M/s. Industrial Bearing Corporation, Canning Street, Calcutta collectively valued at Rs. 60,351/- were seized under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that those goods of foreign origin transported by M/s. Cromolite Transport Corporation, have been illicitly imported into India in contravention of provision of Section 3(1) of Import/Export (Control) Act, 1947 as amended, read with Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 rendering the said goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the ball bearings of Indian origin work used for concealment of the foreign goods are also liable to confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The concerned Transporter M/s. Cromolite Transport Corporation, consignors (1) Bona fide Enterprises and (2) Chilalia Bros, and consignee Industrial Bearing Corpn. being firms concerned within the meaning of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 were also issued with show cause notices.
4. So far as the consignee M/s. Overseas Engineering, 133, Canning Street, Calcutta-1 is concerned, 4(Four) packages under C/Note Nos. 38067 and 38056 valued at 20,400.00 were seized under Section 110 ibid. Shri Shyam Sundar Daga, a partner of M/s. Overseas Engineers, in his deposition dt. 4-2-1985 before investigation officer of D.R.I, stated inter alia that he had brought 16 pcs. of bearing No. 22318 ZKL made in Czechoslovakia from M/s. Somuh Trading Co., 133/37 Narayan Dhrub Street, Bombay-3 vide bill No. STC/05/85 dt. 19-1-85 and bearing viz.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.