Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Moheb ali m., JJ.
Eastern Medikit Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva -Respondent
Final Order No. A/244/WZB/2005/C-I Appeal No. C/973/2004, A/244 of 2005, C/973 of 2004
Decided On : 18-03-2005
Per Jyoti Balasundaram :
The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported a consignment of 'Medical disposal goods' on re-import vide Bill of entry dated 6.12.1999. The consignment was assessed at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. dated 14.11.1995 and clearance was allowed in terms of the Notification on execution of a bond undertaking to re-export the same within six months. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs ordered enforcement of the bond on failure to re-export the goods within the stipulated period of six months. The Adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal by the importer.
2. The reliance placed by the ld. counsel for the appellants on CBEC Circular 14/97 dated 3.6.97[reported in 1997 (20) RLT M44] clarifying that the time period of six months under the Notification, for the purpose of re-export, is to be calculated from the date of actual clearance of the goods and not from the date of filing of the B/E, is mis-placed as in the present case the date of clearance by the Customs authorities, that is the date on which out of charge order was given by the Customs authorities, was 26.9.2000, and therefore, the goods ought to have been re-exported prior to 29.11.2000. However, the actual re-export took place only in Feb.-March, 2001. The plea of the appellants that the six months period is to be calculated from the date on which they took possession of the goods from the Customs authorities viz. 26.9.2000 is not the correct interpretation of the circular which obviously was meant to take care of any possible delay on the part of the Customs Authorities between the assessment of the B/E and the date of passing of out of charge order, as seen from the language of the circular. We see no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
