Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Commissioner Of Customs vs Alfa Exim on 20 May, 1997 cites

Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 July, 1993

In Jain Export v. U.O.I., the Court held that his letter of authority holder cannot have greater rights than the licensee. A letter of authority holder, in terms of the provisions of the policy which then existed, was permitted to place orders, open letters of credit, and carry out other specified activities in respect of the licence for which he had authority, to facilitate import of the goods. However the policy expressly provided that the letter of authority holder was to carry out these activities on behalf of the licensee and to pass on the goods to the licensee. The letter of authority holder was in the nature of an agent of the licensee. He has to be distinguished from a transferee, who is in a very different position.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 78 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 1996

The Supreme Court's decision in Shashank Sea Food v. U.O.I. held that the Customs authorities had the Power to investigate diversion of goods imported under duty free licences and under the relevant exemption notification. That decision does not provide authority for the proposition made in the Department's appeal. The decision in Zenith Tin Works was to the effect that the tin sheets which were imported could not avail of the benefit of licence, being of different thickness than those used in export. That decision however related to an earlier notification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 62 - Full Document

Raj Exports vs National Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 1 March, 1996

The decision in Raj Export v. National Aluminium Company Limited - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 349 was to the effect that the condition of the Notification No. 203 of 1992 that duty free import of replenishment material would not be allowed if Modavat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the goods used to make the exported materials would not become available referring the credit policy. It has no relevance to the present issue. The decision in Garment Craft has with regard to a licence issued under the earlier policy, governed by a different notification which emphasised that goods sought for import should be those actually required for manufacture of the export products. The decision in NITCO Marble/Granite and the decision of its conference of Collectors of Customs and of the Board which may be considered to be contemporaneous exposition of the notification, in the sense that it is how it was understood by the department were subsequent to this decision, and therefore, could not have been cited before the bench which passed the said order.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Zenith Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 21 March, 1990

3. The Departmental Representative contends that a duty is cast upon the Customs to satisfy itself that the import goods are entitled for the benefits of notification; any person who claims benefits of notification has to satisfy the authorities that he is entitled to the benefits of the notification. He contend that the transferee of the licence has stepped into the shoes of the original licence holder, and whatever the original licensee is required to do will have to be done by the Transferee. He relates on the decision in jain Exports v. U.O.I. - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 753; Shashank Sea Foods v. U.O.I. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.); Zenith Tin Work v. C.C. -1995 (75) E.L.T. 865 (Tribunal) and the unreported decision of this Tribunal in Garment Craft v. C.C. -Order No. 2960 of 1996. The Advocate for the respondents contends that once the export obligation has been fulfilled and the licence is permitted to be transferred, the Customs cannot once again ask a person who makes an import under such a licence to establish the nexus that the original licensee is required to be established. He seeks to distinguish a decision of the Tribunal of Garment Craft on the ground that it dealt with Notification No. 117 of 1988, which is differently worded from the notification presently under consideration.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1