Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(x) Shri Paresh Shah of Bombay got in touch with Sri Vikram on February 4, 1993. Sri Vikram called them over telephone and explained the hardship undergone whereby he was arrested and put under detention for about 10 months for wrong importation of goods other than scrap. They informed Sri Vikram about the wrong shipment and Shri Paresh Shah was not to claim any expenses from him as it was not Shri Vikram's mistake. Sri Vikram informed them that the Customs authorities were going to auction the goods as he (Sri Vikram) was neither claiming the goods nor going to pay the bills in the Bank. They, therefore, suggested that they would send a supplementary invoice to the Bank in Hyderabad. But this suggestion did not evoke any positive response from Sri Vikram. It seemed that as Sri Vikram was confined in a goal on account of the unintended and wrong shipment he seemed to have lost faith. They enclosed copies of their correspondence with Sri Vikram.
(xi) They affirm and reiterate that nobody in India was even remotely responsible for this mishap and that punishing anybody on this count would be a total miscarriage of justice.
(xii) They further affirm and reiterate that there was absolutely no mala fide intention on their part to cheat or defraud anybody in their error of wrong shipment, in fact, they had taken action against the Supervisor of their Warehouse section by sacking him from his service.
(xiii) They continue to be the owners of the goods and since there was no other way to recover the actual value at Hyderabad, they would request to pass order for reshipment of the goods to them through their agent. The freight charges and other incidental expenses would be borne by them without demure.
(xiv) In the normal course of International trade, such reshipment was being invariably granted and they were informed that the Apex Court of India had also passed such order to reship the goods which had not been paid by the Indian Importers. In the light of the liberalised policy programme being pursued by Indian Government and as the wrong shipment was on account of a bona fide lapse of a section of their Company, they would earnestly request for reshipment of the goods."

(b) The Commissioner after considering the submissions of the appellants found as follows, as regards his role, in his impugned order.

60.2 The above narration of M/s. Unisindo attempts to project that Sri Vikram was kept informed at least in February 1993 about the so called wrong despatch of the goods. If it is true, nothing prevented Sri Vikram to place the so called true facts before the Adjudicating Authority. It is significant to note that Sri Vikram submitted his reply to the Show-cause Notice on July 26, 1993 i.e. about 5 months after he was supposed to have known about the wrong despatch of the goods. Yet, no mention of it was made in his reply. On the contrary he has put the blame squarely on the duo S/Shri Kishore and Patel. It is, therefore, crystal clear that, for the reasons best known to them, M/s. Unisindo cooked up a cock-and-bull story in order to secure an order for re-export of the goods. Some invisible hand behind must be operating to get at the goods in this dubious and foul means. It must have pressed the services of M/s. Unisindo to achieve this goal. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of M/s. Unisindo outright. They have no locus standi in the case in as much as their claim of continued ownership of goods is without any foundation whatsoever. I do not consider this as a case of wrong shipment and, therefore, the question of permitting re-export does not arise at all."