Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a company which is engaged in the business of import and export of copper rods, bare wires, ferrous and non-ferrous metal, etc. Petitioner holds importer exporter code bearing No.0317500457 dated 05.04.2017.

4. Petitioner had imported copper wire rods 8 MM electrolytic tough pitch copper wire rod as per ASTM B49 in two consignments vide bills of lading dated 03.12.2019 and 07.12.2019. In the course of import, WPST3834_20.odt petitioner contemplated high seas sale of the imported goods to M/s. Chandrashekhar Industries, subsequently added as respondent No.4 to the present proceeding in terms of order dated 29.09.2020. Respondent No.4 was required to pay the agreed amount for the high seas sale by entering into a written agreement. However, only an oral agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and respondent No.4. Unfortunately, without making any payment towards the high seas sale but on the basis of the oral agreement, two bills of entry dated 10.12.2019 were filed by respondent No.4 in respect of the two imported consignments.

33. Following the same, the Joint Commissioner informed Joint Director, DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad vide letter dated 04.06.2020 that as per his direction, Commissioner of Customs (In-charge of Group IV) had approved to nullify the amendment carried out in the two bills of entry.

34. From the above, it is apparent that on the date of seizure, the bills of entry were in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner had not (and still has not) claimed any benefit under the Notification No.25/99- Customs dated 28.02.1999. It may be mentioned that office of the Commissioner of Customs had informed DRI authorities that the amendments were allowed because NOC was submitted by both the parties i.e., buyer and seller of the high seas sale. It was also mentioned that amendment was allowed as there was no change in the original bills of lading and IGM. At this stage, we may refer to Standing Order No.10 of 2017 dated 03.05.2017 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, WPST3834_20.odt Nhava Sheva-IV which has been placed on record by respondent No.3 as Exhibit-E to his affidavit. This Standing Order prescribes the essential documents necessary for registration of high seas sale contract / transaction. The documents are high seas sales contract, non-negotiable copy of bill of lading, high seas sale invoice and commercial invoice, authority letter for customs broker from high seas sales buyer and copies of importer exporter code of both buyer and seller. From the above, it is evident that a high seas sale has to be in writing in the form of an agreement / contract which has to be signed by both the buyer and the seller and duly notarized. Therefore, respondents have rightly contended that the high seas sale entered into by and between the petitioner and respondent No.4 was no sale in the eye of law as it was done orally. If the high seas sale was not a sale in the eye of law then respondent No.4 could not have filed the two bills of entry relating to the two import consignments. This is more so when the bills of lading and IGM were in the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the customs authorities at Nhava Sheva had rightly allowed the amendments prayed for. As on the date of seizure i.e., 09.01.2020, the two bills of entry were in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner had not sought any concession or exemption or benefit under Notification No.25/99- Customs dated 28.02.1999. In such circumstances, there could not have been any reason to believe that the said imported goods had contravened any of the provisions of section 111 dealing with confiscation and hence liable to seizure under section 110. That apart, all the developments mentioned above are post seizure developments which could have no bearing on the validity or invalidity of the impugned seizure.