TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. V. Sasikumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan, Advocate for 1st respondent, Mr. R. Vijayakumar, Advocate for the second respondent, Mr. K. Gokul, Advocate for the third respondent, Mr. V.J. Mathew, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Muthusaravanan, Advocate for the fourth respondent, Mr. D. Sivaraman, Advocate for the fifth respondent, Mr. S. Muthalraj, Advocate for the sixth respondent, the court made the following order :-

(2.) The categorical plea of the petitioner is that he is one of the bona fide purchasers of Raw Cashew Nuts from the first respondent/writ petitioner and further that he had entered into a valid High Sea Sale Agreement, which is one of the authoritative trade practice, as per Article 286(1)(b) and Article 286(2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Continuing further, it is the stand of the petitioner that the title of the goods was on the basis of 'Bill of Ladings' carrier documents vested with the first respondent/writ petitioner and after the High Sea Sale Agreement, the title of goods transfers to their Firm and prior to the entry of goods in the territorial jurisdiction of India, etc.