At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
For the Plaintiff: P.S. Bose, Senior Advocate, Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Defendants: R.N. Basak, Bidyut Dutt, Bijan Datta, D1 to D4 & D7 & D8, P. Chowdhury, Advocates.
The Court : I have considered submissions of counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 and have considered the suggested issues framed by them. The issues as settled are indicated below:
1. Did the plaintiff classify Iron
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ore for domestic consumption for the purpose of levying freight charges under clause 170 and Iron ore for other than Domestic Consumption classified under clause 200 ?
2. Did the defendants fail to consume 75,573.619 MT of iron ore in their pre-declared manufacturing unit for the purpose of manufacturing iron and steel?
3. Did the defendants consume 75,573.619 MT of Iron ore for other than domestic consumption?
4. Was the consignor required to give an Affidavit affirming that consignment of iron ore is meant for domestic consumption at the pre-declared manufacturing unit of the consignee?
5. Was the consignor required to submit a stamped indemnity note to indemnify Railway against any use other than the domestic consumption as contemplated in the relevant rate circular?
6. Did the defendant no.1 misrepresent and induce the plaintiffs to believe that iron ore sought to be transported through Railways at lower freight rate would be exclusively used for manufacture of Iron and Steel in the pre-declared manufacturing unit of the Defendant No.1?
7. Did the defendant No.1 along with defendant Nos.2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 make themselves liable for a sum of Rs.5,54,35,799/- towards evaded freight and Rs.36,07,83,396/- towards Additional charges totaling Rs.41,62,19,195/- by not consuming iron ore for the aforesaid purpose in its predeclared unit but diverted a substantial portion for the purposes other than domestic consumption ?
8. Whether the defendants have mis-declared about the actual end use of the iron ore and have availed concessional tariff from the plaintiffs?
9. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action against the defendant nos.2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 as directors of the defendant no.1.
10. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any other relief and to what extent?
11. Whether the plaintiffs’ imposition of penalty and/or claim is based on any valid methodology or any legal basis?
12. Whether the plaintiffs can claim any amount at all after delivering the said ore and accepting the consideration without any objection ?
An order passed on 31st January, 2018 by this Court indicates that the suit shall be heard ex parte against defendant nos.5 and 6.
List this matter on 13th August, 2018 for examination in chief of the plaintiffs’ witness.