JUDGMENT K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. - The writ petitions are filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 2, 2002 made in S.T.A. Nos. 981 and 982 of 2002. The point involved in the writ petitions is whether at the time of transfer of title to the goods, the goods have crossed the custom frontier or not. For the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, exemption had been granted originally by the assessing officer in respect of certain turnover, which is stated to be high seas sales under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Subsequently, pursuant to inspection by the Inspection Wing of the Department, exemption originally granted was cancelled and the turnover was brought to tax on the ground that title to the goods was transferred after the goods reached the port and were warehoused. The order of revision has been upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal has reversed the same by finding that after the amendment to the Central Sales Tax Act, and introduction of section 2(ab) of the Act, wherein the "crossing the customs frontier of India" was defined to mean "crossing the customs limits of the area of a customs station in which imported goods or export goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs authorities" and further taking into consideration the fact that the customs frontier would include the appended warehouses as per the Customs Act, and as per section 2(13) of the Customs Act, "customs station" means "any customs port, customs airport or land customs station", and after taking into consideration sections 47 and 68 of the Customs Act, which provide for clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption, and after following the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in T.C. (R) Nos. 2682 and 2683 of 2000 dated July 14, 2000 (State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 129 STC 287 (TNTST)) and the order of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2682 and 2683 of 2000 dated July 14, 2000 (State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 129 STC 287 (TNTST)) and the order of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 20085 and 20086 of 2000 dated October 17, 2001 (State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 129 STC 294 (Mad)) and with reference to the fact that after the receipt of bill of lading, the goods were warehoused, the importer has endorsed the bill of lading by transfer of title to the goods to the purchaser before clearing the goods, held that the exemption under section 5(2) of the Act is available to the assessee. The first respondent is an assessee and was originally assessed to tax on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,93,250 and Rs. 8,87,500, respectively, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 1986-87 on June 13, 1988. The place of business of the first respondent was inspected by the inter-State Investigation Cell at Chennai on April 18, 1990 and verified the records regarding the high seas sales transactions of the first respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent entered into contract with the foreign seller for supply of art film and out-board motors for home consumption under O.G. L/REP licences. When they received the bill of lading of the foreign seller they entered into the contract with buyer in India to sell the goods on high seas sales and claimed exemption under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The bill of lading was surrendered to the shipping agency through clearing agent and got delivery order. Then the bill of entry was filed before the customs authority in the name of the importer and after getting the goods assessed for duty warehoused the same by executing bond. The right of the ownership of the property remained in the name of the importer during the period the goods were kept in the warehouse under bond and the warehousing charges and insurance charges of the goods are raised in the name of the importer. Thus the right of ownership of goods is retained by the importer, though the goods were said to have been sold on the high seas sale. Thus the right of ownership of goods is retained by the importer, though the goods were said to have been sold on the high seas sale. Therefore, despite the documents of title being transferred, the importers only have handled the goods subsequently and the property remained in the name of the importer. Therefore, the sale is not in the course of import. Keeping the goods in the warehouse on execution of the bond is a concession given to the importer under the Customs Act for the purpose of payment of customs duty. Thus, the subsequent sale will attract sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows : "5. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export. - (1). ... (2) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India." Section 2(ab) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows : "Crossing the customs frontiers of India" means crossing the limits of the area of a customs station in which imported goods or export goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by customs authorities : "Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, 'customs station' and 'customs authorities' shall have the same meanings as in the Customs Act, 1962." Section 2(11) of the Customs Act defines "customs area" under the Customs Act, 1962 as "the area of a customs station and includes any area in which imported goods or export goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by customs authorities". So, the goods ought not to have been cleared from the area of the customs station. Admittedly in this case, the goods are warehoused and not cleared on payment of the customs duty. The warehouse for which the goods were cleared are regarded as "customs station" as defined under the Act. So, the goods ought not to have been cleared from the area of the customs station. Admittedly in this case, the goods are warehoused and not cleared on payment of the customs duty. The warehouse for which the goods were cleared are regarded as "customs station" as defined under the Act. Admittedly, the transfer of title of the documents was well prior to the goods being cleared for home consumption on the payment of customs duty. The Special Government Pleader very strenuously contended that none of the documents has been produced either before the assessing officer or before the appellate authority in support of the claim, but suddenly before the Tribunal some documents were produced which is impermissible in law. On the merits, the learned Special Government Pleader is not able to substantiate his contention that only after the goods have crossed the customs limit the documents of title were transferred in favour of the buyer and the buyer got the goods assessed and paid the customs duty and cleared the goods. In paragraph 8 of the order of the Tribunal, it is clearly stated that at the time of hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the respondent has produced two volumes of relevant papers, such as import invoice, bill of lading with endorsement of high seas sales contract, high seas sales invoice, bill of entry, etc., with regard to 11 transactions for the assessment years 1985-86 and 5 transactions for the assessment year 1986-87 and also represented that the same documents were produced before the lower authorities, which were not considered by them. When this statement of the highest fact-finding authority constituted under the Act is not repudiated, the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the assessee has suddenly inserted the second volume before the Appellate Tribunal, cannot be accepted. On the facts also, we find that the approach of the Tribunal, having regard to the statutory provision, section 2(ab) of the Central Sales Tax Act, and section 2(13) of the Customs Act and also sections 47 and 68 of the Customs Act, holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption, as in this case the goods cannot be regarded as having crossed the customs frontier, when it was warehoused, is correct and we do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.