9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and another Rs. 25,000.00 towards the personal penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 3. The facts of the cases are that on 17-10-1985 on the basis of information, the Customs Officers of Gorakhpur Division intercepted the appellant who was travelling in a bus at about 10.15 AM coming from Sonauli side near village Ravatpur. He was in possession of the five pieces of foreign marked gold and gold chain mentioned above. His statement was recorded and show cause notice was issued and the Adjudication Proceedings took place. After adjudication, the above-said order was passed. 4. The appellant had filed the appeals on several grounds. But the learned Consultant, Shri R.M. Das during the time of arguments raised only one point with respect to the return of the five pieces of gold biscuits and gold chain. He did not challenge the imposition of the penalties under both the Acts. 5. It was his contention that the seizure was made on 17-10-1985 and the show cause notice was issued six months after thereof. It was, therefore, contended that in view of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that sufficient cause has been made out before him in that behalf to extend the time beyond the original period of six months, and thereafter, after notice has been served on the person concerned, to afford a post-decisional hearing to him in order to determine whether the order of extension should be cancelled or not. Having regard to the seriousness and the magnitude of injury to the public interest in the case of the illicit importation of goods, and having regard to considerations of the damage to economic policy underlying the formulation of import and export planning, it seems necessary to reconcile the need to afford an opportunity to the person affected with the larger considerations of public interest. It is, thus, clear that the notice having reached the appellant beyond six months the appellant is entitled for the return of the gold pieces and gold ornament. In the case of Smt. Shyam Lata Sharma etc. v. Collector of Customs (P), Patna, this Tribunal at para 30 had held as follows : That apart, section 110 makes a specific reference to the Notice under Section 124. These aspects taken together go to show that proceedings initiated under Section 124 are independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by Brother Nambiar, reliance has been placed on the decision taken by this Bench in Shyamlata Sharma v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna, where it was held that the proceedings initiated under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 are linked to the provisions of Section 110 in so far as the question of confiscation of seized goods is concerned. It was held that the issue of a notice under Section 124 within the period prescribed under Section 110 was mandatory. 11. Judicial pronouncement on the question whether seized goods can be confiscated where notice had not been issued within the time limit prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act are divided. The Madras High Court in Collector of Customs v. Amrithalakshmi, AIR 1975 Mad. 43 held that the failure to give notice under Section 110 does not in any way affect the power of the authorities to continue the proceedings for confiscation of the goods or impose penalty. The following judgments support the view that the power to confiscate under Section 124 are not curtailed by the time limit provisions in Section 110 for issue of show cause notice. (1) Munilal v. Collector of Central Excise - AIR 1975 Punjab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968 seized by the Revenue authorities on 17th October, 1985 are to be returned to the appellant as the show cause notice dated 10th April, 1986 was received by the appellant on 23rd April, 1986 viz. after the expiry of six months. Shri P.K. Das, the learned Advocate who is present on behalf of the appellant pleaded that since the show cause notice though issued within six months from the date of seizure was served on the appellant after the expiry of six months and as such, the seized gold biscuits and chain should be returned to the appellant. In support of his arguments, he cited the following decisions :- (1) C.D. Govinda Rao v. Government of India reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 209 (Kerala). (2) Shri Nathulal Aggarwalla v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Others reported in AIR 1982 Orissa 258. (3)Ambalal Moraraji Soni v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1972 Gujarat 126. (4) K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and Others reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 330. The learned advocate argued that when the goods are returnable under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, there is no justification for the confiscation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon ble Supreme Court, I hold that the proceedings under Section 110 and Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 are independent of each other and not inter-dependent. Accordingly, Question No. (i) is answered. Now, coming to Question No. (ii), since Question No. (i) has been decided that Section 110 and Section 124 are independent of each other and the appellant has not challenged the imposition of levy of penalty and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and the detailed reasons given by the Member (T) in his order, I hold that confiscation of the goods is in accordance with law, and I answer accordingly. With the above observations, I direct the Registry to place the matter before the Regular Bench for passing appropriate orders. Dated : 29th April, 1994. Sd/- (Harish Chander) President FINAL ORDER 17. In view of the majority decision, it is held that the confiscation of the goods in question is in accordance with law. Since the penalties imposed on the Appellant under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are not challenged by him, the same are confirmed. 18. In the result, the Appeals are dismissed. Date : 4th May ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
