Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

False case of urgency :-

71. Mr. Ashwin Shanker, would submit that there was no prospect of the defendant vessel leaving territorial waters without necessary custom and port clearances. Since the respondent/ palintiff had imported the vessel by completing the customs formalities, it was only the plaintiff who could have completed the re-export custom formalities. Therefore, there was no pressing urgency to seek the arrest of the vessel. Mr. Shanker invited the attention of the Court ial-17189-2021.doc to the correspondence from Benline Agencies emphasizing that re- export was required to be advised by the plaintiff. The attention of the Court was also invited to the contentions in the affidavit in sur- rejoinder that the plaintiff admitted that it had imported the defendant-vessel under its own importer/exporter code, to bolster up submission that the vessel could not have sailed without completion of export formalities.