9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the investigation in order to ascertain the true nature of the goods and value thereof. They had even made overseas enquiries. However, due to non-completion of the enquiry, DRI, Kolkata was not in a position to issue show cause notice within the stipulated time of six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, to the appellants and prayed for extension of time under proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Port) had allowed the extension of time for another six months through the impugned order on the ground that overseas enquiries are time consuming and the allegations regarding the misdeclaration and valuation of the goods were of serious nature and if established shall render the imported goods liable to confiscation. The learned Commissioner, however, had declined the request of the appellants for the release of the goods in terms of Section 10(2) of the Customs Act, on the ground that the same thereafter would not be available for confiscation and value of the goods has yet to be ascertained. 4. The appellants have come up in appeal against this impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Port). 5. The learned SDR, Shri P.K. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffecting adversely the valuable right of the importer/owner of the goods who becomes entitled to receive back the goods if no notice within the stipulated period of six months from the date of seizure of the goods had been served on him. 9. The Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Customs Superintendent, Preventive Service Customs, Calcutta and Others v. Charan Das Malhotra (supra) has draw a fine distinction between judicial and administrative functions of the Customs Officers under the Customs Act as under :- The dividing line between judicial and administrative functions is thin and gradually evaporating and the functions performed by those doing judicial and administrative functions have the same object, namely, to do justice and deciding the question fairly and justly where the rights of citizens are affected to their prejudice. In the former case, there would be express rules of procedure but the object of these rules is only to enable or facilitate to decide fairly and justly. That was also a case where seizure of the goods was made under Section 110 of the Customs Act and the arose as to whether the extension of time could be allowed by the Commissioner in routine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aldor Topsoe) supra, wherein investigation is required to be completed within one year, that extension of such a period is only administrative decision based exigency of the case, are in fact not all applicable to the present case. The power of the designated authority in an anti-dumping matter to extend the period for completion of investigation cannot be equated with that of the Commissioner under proviso to sub-section 110(2) of the Customs Act as the power by the latter has to be exercised judiciously on examination of material placed before him. There is no question of his subjective satisfaction because he has to determine that the cause shown before him warranted extension of time. The Commissioner has no power to allow the extension of time on the expiry of initial period of six months for serving show cause notice for the confiscation of the goods on the owner without affording opportunity of hearing to the person from whose custody the goods were seized, as observed in the above referred case by the Apex Court. 13. Following the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Customs Superintendent, Preventive Service Customs, Calcutta Others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een fair/judicious while passing this order. He should have taken into account the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court regarding the power of the competent authority to impose redemption fine even after the release of the goods provisionally to the owner and also the Board s instructions on retention of goods based on the observation of the Apex Court in International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 and Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi Co. - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). 18. The apprehension in the mind of the learned Commissioner that once the goods were released provisionally, the same would not be available for confiscation if on the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings the import was found to be invalid/improper, was wholly misconceived and misplaced. The Apex Court had clearly in Weston Components Ltd. v. CC New Delhi ruled as under :- Mere fact that the goods were released on the bond would not take away the power of the Customs Authorities to levy redemption fine if subsequent to release of goods import was found not valid or that there was any other irregularity which would entitle the Customs authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
