Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
J.B. Impex vs Commissioner Of Cus. on 18 September, 2000 cites

Chandra Kishore Jha vs Mahavir Prasad & Ors on 21 September, 1999

(v) Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [1999 (8) SCC 266] before us are not at all relevant for purpose of this case and we find that on other grounds the appellants have made a good case. We are therefore of the view that the action of the DGFT authorities, introducing the certain conditions in respect of the DRIED GARLIC by means of a moisture content putting in a delightfully vague way is absolutely wrong in law. Even the ISI specification submitted by the ld. DR refers to only DEHYDRATED GARLIC that is ISI specification 5452-1969. It is not referred to as DRIED GARLIC but only for Re-hydration. In para 3.7 thereof, there is reference to DEHYDRATED GARLIC is entirely different from DRY GARLIC. The communication dated 18-8-1999 issued by National Horticultural Research and Development Foreign Trade, Nasik state that the definition of dry garlic is normally used for DEHYDRATED GARLIC. This is completely destroys the case of the department. It is because dry garlic cannot be equated to dehydrated garlic. We are therefore of the view the action of the DGFT as well as the Customs authorities are not supported by law. Hence the appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief if any according to law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 113 - Full Document
1   2 Next