9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice under Section 124, ibid. in respect of Lithopone 28-30% and Tetracyline HCL detained (deemed to have been seized) by Calcutta Customs on 10-6-1999. The grievance, as made out in the appeal, is that the civil right for restoration of the said goods that has accrued to the appellant, on account of non-issue of show-cause notice within the statutory time limit, has been defeated by the order impugned. 2. The burden of song of the appellant is that in the facts and circumstances of the case "sufficient cause" does not exist for granting extension of time beyond the statutory time limit of six months. 3. A close perusal of the relevant facts would be of immense help to arrive at a decision in the matter. The facts in brief are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8-3-2000 the quantity of Tetracycline HCL has been mentioned as 10 MTs as against 16.725 MTs indicated earlier. As such, there has been a corresponding reduction in the value of the misdeclared goods from Rs. 1,02,97,166/- to Rs. 63,32,018/- and the alleged evasion of duty quantified is Rs. 38,16,729/-). 3.2. During the course of investigation, searches were conducted at the office as well as the residential premises of Shri Rajesh Kothari. Searches were also conducted at the premises of the Custom House Agent. Statements of a few persons were recorded. Several summons were issued to the Rajesh Kothari to appear before the investigating officer. But he distanced himself from the investigating agency by non-appearance. The Customs, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar before the department till date and recording of his statement is extremely necessary to complete the investigation. 3.4 The Appellant submitted a reply dated 30-11-1999 trough his Advocate Shri O.K. Srivastava. In the said reply, the appellant opposed the proposed extension on time limit on the undermentioned grounds: (a) As the import was done through regular channels and the decision is to be taken on the basis of the documents already available on record such as Bill of Entry, report of physical verification, chemical examination report and the preliminary explanation of the importer as contained in his letter dated 25-6-1999. (b) The delay in issue of Show-cause Notice has no legal justification and is pure harassment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice under Section 124 ibid. was issued on 8-3-2000 which was put to him in the Speed Post on 9-3-2000 at 15.41 hours and the same was received by the appellant on 10-3-2000. The appellant as also aggrieved by this order. According to him, it was not given to him within the meaning of Section 110 and Section 124 ibid, with in the time-limit. 4. Shri J.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the term investigation has not been defined in the Customs Act, 1962 and as such it has to be understood in the sense taken from Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 according to which the investigation stage is only unto the collection of evidence in support of the prosecution ( in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the case and such sufficient cause existed in extending the time limit for issue of show cause Notice. 6. We have heard both sides and have carefully perused the evidence on record. 31/135 7. The dispute that calls for determination is whether there existed a sufficient cause when the time limit for issue of show-cause notice was extended in the instant case. As mentioned above , the learned Advocate Shri Srivastava pleaded that all the relevant documents and the preliminary explanation of the appellant have already been brought on record and nothing remained to be done. He further pleads that non-appearance of the appellant before the Customs officer, when summoned, would not constitute a sufficient cause because the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thwart such an investigation is a retrograde step which runs counter to the domain of justice. In the instant case, the Customs Department felt that overseas investigation was required to be done. The question is whether this decision is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is observed that the appellant submitted that the subject import consignment meant for Belgium party was missent to him by the foreign supplier of Hong Kong. Verification of this statement can be done only through overseas investigation. As the investigation conducted so far has unfolded that prima facie Shri Rajesh Kothari is the key figure in the illicit transaction, recording of his statement was considered by the Customs to be absolutely essenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
