Ed And F Man Commodities India Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 5 January
petitioner
M/s.Jet informed that it was a case of
wrong shipment.
14.9 It is further contended that on
04.10.2019, Shri Kshitiz Sharma appeared
production of the shipment documents. In
the absence of shipment documents he could not take delivery of the consignment. If
the shipment documents reached ... every
possibility of wrong delivery of shipment consignment on production of shipment
documents by a wrong person. The complainant must be vigilant by watching whether
production of the shipment documents. In the absence of
shipment documents he could not take delivery of the consignment. If the shipment
documents reached ... some every possibility of
wrong delivery of shipment consignment on production of shipment documents by a
wrong person. The opposite party must be vigilant
evidence being submitted by the supplier
during investigation itself concerning wrong shipment by referring to
the judgment reported
assessment year 2008-09. The difference is
only due to short shipment and wrongly taken for the different
assessment years. Then, the AO does
assessment year 2008-09.
The difference is only due to short shipment and wrongly taken for the
different assessment years. Then, the AO does
respondent No.5 was due to late
shipment of the goods or due to the wrong port being
indicated.
iii. That the mistake ... regarding the wrong
point of loading that the respondent No.1 issued such a
certificate/letter dated 30.03.1999 mentioning that the shipment was
loaded from
United Containers Lines
(UCL) containing the words "cargo received for
shipment" without actually receiving the cargo. The
data of shipping bill numbers given ... lading giving the details of shipping bill
numbers and date of shipment).
iii. In his statements, Mr. Hardik, the CHA and authorised
signatory
took the services of the
opposite party no. 1 for sending their shipments with an
understanding that necessary documentation for the custom
clearances in relation ... sent various mails to the Opposite Party no. 1
informing wrong reporting of their shipments and the Opposite
party had also assured the complainants