Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Ms. Babbar has further highlighted that the petitioner was involved in the fraudulent export under the claim of Duty Drawback of Rs. 49.75 lacs against seven shipping bills by over-invoicing and misdeclaration of goods. In response to this submission Mr. Jain has stated that an opinion taken from another trader, who has since retracted his statement, cannot and should not be used against the petitioner. The second consignment concerned export of Nickel Welding Electrodes, in whose stead Iron Electrodes had been consigned for export. Mr. Jain has stated that by letter dated 4.4.2003 the petitioner had informed the Assistant Commissioner, ICD Faridabad that there was some human error in description of the consigned goods; it was requested that the shipment may be permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner has also filed a letter dated 16.4.2003 informing the Commissioner, Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi for the cancellation of the Order by the Buyer. Hence, a request for withdrawal of the shipment was made. Receipt of the letter dated 4.4.2003 has been vehemently denied in unequivocal terms in the Counter Affidavit. We also note the absence of any reference of this letter by the Petitioner in the immediately following letter dated 16.4.2003. No doubt, there is some weight in the Petitioner's reliance on the cross-examination of the Inspector of Customs who had been asked whether the letter dated 4.4.2003 was on record. In his answer he has admitted this to be correct with the caveat that the case had already been detected by that time and the sample had been drawn. We cannot lose sight of the fact that both these grounds are in the nature of disputed questions of fact. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to delve into this matrix at this stage, which is a challenge to the preventive detention order at the pre-execution stage; we decline to do so.