relevant lorry receipts by which the goods were supplied and the
consignment notes was prepared by the plaintiff and marked as exhibit.
The plaintiff established
order was to be executed by four consignments. In
respect of the first and the second consignments, the plaintiff had
negotiated the documents of title ... called discrepancy.
The same discrepancy is sought to be noted in respect of the second
consignment. When the first consignment had been found
materials were seized and six samples out of the three
2
consignments were taken for the purpose of testing. He refers to the order ... drawn six samples of three consignments and found them to be of nickel-silver scrap.
The confiscation proceedings noted such result of list. The confiscation
beneficial owner of two consignments was the same. One
2
of the consignees did not pay a portion of the consignment value to the
petitioner ... claim was rejected on the ground that two
consignments had the same beneficial owner. As noted above, when a
question was put to the learned
such
circumstances to establish the weight of the consignment before taking
delivery thereof. The consignment was weighed in one of the two stations
named ... establish the weight of
the consignment. Instead of establishing the weight, the writ petitioner took
delivery of the consignment unconditionally. The railway authorities,
thereafter, raised
plaintiff, a written note of argument was
relied upon. The plaintiff did not cite any authority from the
notes on argument.
I have considered ... jural relationship
between the parties was admitted. The defendant acted as the
consignment agent of the plaintiff pursuant to and in terms of the
letters
racks for
transportation of goods. Such consignment was booked in its old
name. The delivery of the consignment was taken in the new name ... same person had booked the rake and had taken delivery of the
consignment. The booking was done in the old name and the delivery
diverse portion of the impugned order in support of his
contention.
As noted above, an adjudication order dated February 20,
2018, which is appealable ... availing of undue drawback benefit, by way of grossly overvaluing
their export consignments, an investigation was undertaken, and
3
ultimately a show cause notice dated
Jaju Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Port) & Ors
Ajay Saraogi vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2023
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu
