9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Ajit Singh imported a Mercedes Benz 240-D car made in West Germany, Four cylinders, 1979 Model and this was released without duty and fine subject to re-export on or before 26th January, 1984. As per the order appealed against, the car remained in customs custody for 28 days and was dul for re-export out of India on or before 23rd Feoruary, 1984. On 25th February, 1985, in pursuance of secret information, officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence at Amritsar detected the vehicle at the residence of Ajit Singh in his village Takhar in Goraya Distt. Jalandhar. Since Ajit Singh failed to produce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, in support of legal retention of the car in India over and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the vehicle. 5. Shri Naik, in this connection, relied on the following case law : 1. AIR 1975 MADRAS 43 Collector of Customs and Central Excise Hyderabad v. Amruthalak-shmi Others . 2. AIR 1975 (Pub. Haryana) Muni Lal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 3. 1987 (27) E.L.T. 107 (Trib.) Sat Pal, Amritsar v. Collector of Customs Central Excise, Chandigarh . 6. Shri M.S. Rakkar strongly opposes the plea of the department as regards confiscation. He urges that the vehicle remained illegally in the department s custody, as the Show Cause Notice was not issued within the required period of 6 months nor was there any extension of the time for issue of Show Cause Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng notice of confiscation under Section 124(a) without giving opportunity of hearing to person whose articles are seized as contraband. We do not know how this judgment becomes relevant here because in the circumstances of the case, there was no question of extention of period of Show Cause Notice without giving the importer an opportunity of hearing. 9. In the case of Shri Jethanand Tahilram v. Union of India and Others cited by the learned advocates in their favour, the facts were that the proper officer of Customs had seized the impugned goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act while they were in possession of the Petitioner. No notice under Section 124(a) of the Act was given to the Petitioner within six months from the seizure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablished that Section 124 of the Customs Act pertaining to issue of Show Cause Notice before confiscation of goods does not lay down any period within which notice has to be given. The period of six months laid down under Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice. In other words, where a notice has been given subsequent to the expiry of the period of six months, the validity of the proceedings under Section 124 and the liability of the vehicle to confiscation are un-affected. The proceedings under Section 110 and Section 124 of the Customs Act are independent of each other. 10. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the facts of the case, we hold that the vehicle is liable to confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
