9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be disposed of summarily in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances presented before us. Accordingly, after dismissing the application, we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appellant and one Shri M. Manickkam were partners of the firm M/s. J.J. Trading Corporation. On 21-10-1992, the above quantity of sandal wood chips was seized from the premises of the firm by officers of Customs and a case was booked against Shri M. Manickkam. The appellant s name was left out, even though, in the criminal prosecution by police, both partners were name as accused (we are told that those proceedings have ended up in acquittal of the appellant). Accordingly a show-cause notice was issued to M/s. J.J. Trading Corporation and Shri M. Manickka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the learned single judge. The appellant has got a remedy of filing a statutory appeal. No interference is therefore called for with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed. The appellant is given four weeks time to file the appeal before the appellate authority. The present appeal was filed, pursuant to the above direction, ld. Counsel submits. 3. When the case arose before us on the last occasion, we directed the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and such application has since been filed. We have heard ld. Jt. CDR also. 4. It appears from the records that M/s. J.J. Trading Corporation was an unregistered part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal filed on 20-4-06 is within the time limit. The application for condonation of delay is infructuous. 5. Obviously, this is a case which should go back to the Commissioner for fresh decision on the question whether the seized goods are liable to be confiscated and, if so, whether absolutely or with option for redemption. Penal liability has also to be examined afresh, depending on the decision on the confiscability of the goods. Since the appellant did not receive any notice contemplated under Section 124 of the Customs Act, he has to be called upon to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed. Ld. Commissioner of Customs should do this and, then, proceed to adjudicate upon the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
