9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants through two shipping bills both dated 7-9-2000 sought export of 250 CDs. each containing software of jewellery design and mahendi arts. The total value of the software CD was declared as US $ 1,90,000. However, on suspicion that there may be over-valuation of the CDs., the search of the office premises of the appellants was conducted on 13-9-2000 and the relevant documents were seized for the purpose of investigation. During investigation, the department suspected prima facie case of over valuation and did not allow export of 250 CDs. It further revealed that earlier also the appellants had exported 250 identical CDs. in July, 2000. The Investigating Officer accordingly sent a letter to the appellants bank for not allowing payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms allowed the release of the seized currency on bond and bank guarantee, which was furnished by them. 3. Since, due to lengthy investigation, show cause notice could not be served on the appellants within time, the department requested for extension of time under proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. On receipt of this request, notice was issued to the appellants and thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned order extending time limit by another six months i.e. up to 19-3-2002 for completion of investigation and issuance of notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. 4. The appellants have come up in appeal against this impugned order of the Commissioner. 5. The learned Counsel has contended that time f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they did not file any reply, and the Commissioner after going through the entire record pertaining to the investigation of the case, had passed the impugned order and as such, the same is perfectly valid. He has also argued that since seized currency was also released to the appellants, on their request, by the Commissioner, the applicability of the provisions of Section 110(2) read with proviso appended thereto, did not arise and that the law laid down in the cases referred by the counsel (detailed above) is not attracted. 7. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 8. The facts are not much in dispute. During investigation carried out by the custom authorities regarding over-valuation of the goods (250 software CDs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy had already been released to the appellants, though provisionally, by the Commissioner. Therefore, service of the notice within a period of six months in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, in our view, was not essential and for having not served within that time, the invocation of the power of the Commissioner under the proviso to this Section was not even required. 11. However, since the department approached the Commissioner to exercise power under proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, to extend the time, the Commissioner had acted accordingly. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that he did not pass the impugned order extending the time for investigation, in routine, without applying his mind. He went thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
