HASMUKHLAL N. SHAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EACH of these appeals is against the common order confiscating under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 a consignment of Cassia imported by each of the appellants and imposing of penalty on each of them under Section 112.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are as follows : Each of the consignments was being shipped from Singapore and arrived at Bornbay on 4 -1 -1989 on board "Orient Express" which sailed from Dubai earlier. The cargo was brought to Dubai from Singapore by the vessel "Tokyo Bridge". This ship left Singapore on 14 -11 -1988, went on to Japanese ports and returned to Singapore on 8th December. She left Singapore thereafter and went on to Dubai. On this voyage she was carrying the cargo in question. Each of the bills of lading is dated 4 -11 -1988. The certificate dated 11 -8 -1989 issued by the sales executive of P and O at Singapore with regard to each of these consignments landed after giving the details of container numbers and bill of entry etc. "This is to confirm above cargo loaded on 1st call arrival at Singapore on 13 Nov., 1988 and thereafter proceeded to Japan to discharge Japan destined cargo before coming back to Singapore to load Gulf /Dubai bound cargo. Shipped on Board bill of lading was released on 14 -11 -1988."

(3.) CASSIA could be permitted to be imported under Open General Licence all persons for stock and sale, till the policy was amended on 29 -11 -1988. Therefore any goods shipped prior to this date would be entitled to the benefit of OGL would not be so cleared if shipped later except in circumstances specified in the public notice issued by the licensing authority for shipments thereafter receiving. It is not the contention of the appellants that the shipment was covered by any of these conditions. It is, the contention that the shipment took place on 14 -11 -1986 at Singapore when the goods were loaded on board 'Tokyo Bridge' when she sailed to Japanese ports.