MOTI PLASTICS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this case is whether the court should follow its decision in the case of Everbright Plastics Private Ltd. and Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Ors. and several other orders passed pursuant to that judgment on 3rd September, 1992.

(2.) The point of distinction drawn on behalf of the Customs Authorities is that the ship Tiger River had actually reached the Port of Calcutta long after 31st March, 1992, the date on which the Bill of Entry was lodged with the Customs Authorities. Actually, the date of arrival of the ship was 9th April, 1992 which was well beyond the stipulated period of 7 days from the date of lodgement of the Bill of Entry. According to the bill of entry the ship was due to arrive on 6th April, 1992.

(3.) Mr. Bannerjee, appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the Bill of Entry was lodged on 31st March, 1992 on the basis of the advice given by the shipping agent. To show the bona fide of his client, Mr. Bannerjee has drawn my attention to three journals, annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. In the two issues of 'Shipping Times', dated 30th March and 31st March 1992 the due date of arrival of the ship "Tiger River" was shown as 6th April, 1992 and 'Daily Shipping Information' in its issue of 31st March, 1992 also gave 6th April, 1992 as the due date of arrival of the ship "Tiger River". Therefore, the contention of Mr. Bannerjee is that the information given by the Shipping Agent was the information supplied by the Shipping Journals and was not any special information given mala fide to help the importer.