2015 (10) TMI 1097 - HC - Customs

Appeal against provisional release of goods seized - No SCN contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act within a period of six months was issued thus writ petitioner became entitled to return of the goods Appellant contends the extension of time for issuing a SCN been granted by another six months but couldn t provide any proof of the same. Held That - Since Revenue is unable to show that they had any reason to believe that goods in question were liable to confiscation, appeal is thus dismissed in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order directing provisional release of seized goods by Customs authorities.
2. Non-issuance of show cause notice within six months as required by Section 110 of the Customs Act.
3. Alleged extension of time for issuing show cause notice without proper documentation.
4. Dissatisfaction with the revenue's proceedings and failure to demonstrate reasons for confiscation.
5. Dismissal of the appeal and imposition of costs.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed an appeal by the revenue challenging an order directing the provisional release of goods seized by Customs authorities. The goods were seized on a specific date, and it was noted that no show cause notice, as mandated by Section 110 of the Customs Act, was issued within the stipulated six-month period. As a result, the petitioner became entitled to the return of the goods due to the absence of the required notice.

2. The appellant contended an extension of time had been granted for issuing the show cause notice, but failed to provide any documentation supporting this claim. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the revenue's handling of the matter, highlighting orders directing the petitioner to produce necessary papers to prove the seized goods were indigenous. Despite compliance by the petitioner and submission of required documents, the revenue failed to demonstrate any basis for believing the goods were subject to confiscation.

3. The Court, after careful consideration, found no grounds for interference with the challenged order. Additionally, the conduct of the appellant was criticized for lacking justification and failing to meet the necessary standards. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs amounting to &8377;50,000 were imposed on the appellant.

4. Furthermore, the High Court specified that the time granted by the Trial Court for furnishing securities and facilitating the release of the goods would begin from the date of the current judgment. This decision aimed to ensure the orderly progression of proceedings related to the seized goods in question, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal requirements and procedural fairness in such matters.