9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oto deposit the seized Ammonium Chloride or the seizure value thereof, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that on 3-5-1988 in pursuance of an intelligence, the Customs Officers of Imphal searched a godown premises of M/s. Rhino Transport Organisation, M.G. Avenue, Imphal on the strength of a search warrant issued by competent authority. On search, 500 cartoons of Ammonium Chloride marked PC/100% pure Salmonic paramount Chemicals Agencies were recovered, Shri Mahabir Sharma, Assistant Manager of M/s. Rhino Transport Organisation, could not produce any document. Therefore, the same was seized on a reasonable belief that the goods were ready for its ultimate despatch to Moreh on way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 661 and (iii) 1990 (50) E.L.T. 265. 4. The learned J.D.R., Shri B.B. Sarkar contended that from the facts and circumstances it is clear that the goods were meant for illegal export oto Burma and the preparation for clandestine export had started right from the purchasing and booking of the said goods from Calcutta as revealed from the investigation. He also stated that the Honourable High Court of Guwahati ordered for the release of the goods in question in favour of the person, Shri Sushil mehendi. But therewas no bar to adjudicate the case. It was also contended that the appellant stood as surety for release of the goods. If he was not the owner of the goods in question, he would not have stood as surety for a person like Shri Sushil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. This fact was also admitted by the Adjudicating authority in the order itself. The relevant portion of the order in this behalf reads as follows :- Since the Hon ble High Court of Guwahati (Imphal Bench) while disposing of the writ petition filed by Shri Sushil Mehendi of Moreh under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had inter alia ordered unconditional release of the said goods to the petitioner without entering into the merit of the case vide Memo No. HCM/C Rule/372/88/6093-95 dated 5-8-1988 at Imphal. It is thus clear that the goods were allowed oto be released unconditionally. If that were to be so, releasing the goods on executing a bond and taking the surety of the appellants, are contrary to the order passed by the High Court. The Adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption that the appellant is the owner of the goods. In such circumstances, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 on the appellant is not in accordance with law. Since the goods are to be released unconditionally as per the orders of the Hon ble High Court, taking the surety of the appellant for its release is iin contravention of the orders of the Honourable High Court. On that ground alone, the surety bond is not in accordance with law and the appellant cannot be ordered to produce the goods or its seizure value. Even otherwise, if a bond is executed by the appellant, then the Department has to proceed for encashing the bond in accordance with law in a proper court. The bond should be enforced looking into the conditions stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
