9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and valued at Rs. 6,223/- and modifying and reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant by the original authority from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/- under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 27-1-1985 at about 9.30 P.M. the police officials of Royapuram police station, Madras intercepted an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. TMR 2454 at the junction at Kalnandapam Road and Arathar Road and the appellant occupant therein. The police found in the possession of appellant two bags and one brown colour rexine suit case and on opening the same on suspicion found them to contain the following articles :- Rs. cif. Sin rice shoes1. 11 pairs 385/- 2. Pant bits 4x6 mts. and 1 1/2 mts. 25.5 mts. 1,53 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation on payment of a suitable fine since the goods such as T.Shirts, children frocks etc. cannot be said to be in trade quantities. 3. Heard Shri Krishnan, D.R. Since the contravention of the charge is admitted by the appellant, I do not feel called upon to go into the merits of the issue. Nevertheless I find a legal infirmity in the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, dated 30-1-1985 which has also escaped the attention of the lower appellate authority. Admittedly the goods under seizure were originally seized by the police officials and later on handed over to the customs authorities and in such a situation the goods cannot be said to have been seized from the possession of the appellant within the meaning of Section 123 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt as well as Gujarat High Court referred to supra relates to the seizure of the goods by the police officers at the initial stage. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has also taken a similar view in the case of 'Bhoormal Prem-chand v. Collector of Customs, Madras' in the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1967 Madras p.39 clearly holding that" a seizure under the authority law does involve a deprivation of possession and not merely of custody and so when the police officer seizes the goods, the accused loses possession which vests in the police. When that possession is transferred, by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 180 to the Customs authorities, there is no fresh seizure under the Sea Customs Act." 4. Therefore de-hor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
