supplier , Basell International Trading FZE, Dubai which accepted the mistake of sending wrong goods and agreed to take them back bearing all the costs incurred ... dated 28.11.2003 wherein the CBEC has observed that in case of wrong shipments where no mala fide is suspected re-export may be allowed
other ground that CHA did not inform the department of wrong shipment by the overseas suppliers is not sustainable as he based on the advice ... appellant-CHA only, the overseas supplier themselves informed about the wrong shipment directly to the Customs. The appellant is one of the oldest CHA operating
Cmc Ltd vs Unit Trust Of India on 6 February, 2015
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015
other
objections was that two shipments were overdue at the time of
submission of credit limit application. The shipment dated ... payment of shipment dated 27.3.2009, for which the claim was
lodged with OP was realized on 7.4.2009, therefore, on the basis of
wrong and incorrect
towel and the inputs description, otherwise the shipment can be rejected due to wrong declaration. He further submits that the material usage of, the material
said letter after 2 ½ years of the shipment in question, leads to the conclusion that wrong facts are being stated with the intention of getting
pointed out two discrepancies in the documents, the first being late shipment and the other being port of loading being shown as JNPT. However ... opposite party no. 5 was due to late shipment of the goods or due to the wrong port being indicated in the FCR or because
played fraud with the defendant and had caused
wrongful loss and damage. He had booked many shipments without any
approval from the company and also
which
included the amounts towards wrongful deduction in
invoice value, interest loss and carry over cost for
delay in shipment at Kandla.
4.6 The events
indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.
Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party ... extent of Rs.100/-, per shipment. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the District Forum was wrong, in awarding compensation
