9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fabrics and garments of the petitioner for export to Bangladesh. 2. The petitioner claims to carry on business inter alia of import and export of fabrics and garments. According to the petitioner, the petitioner received a purchase order from one M/s. B.M Dress Line of Dhaka, hereinafter referred to as the foreign buyer, for supply of synthetic fabrics. The said foreign buyer, it is claimed, opened an irrevocable letter of credit dated 18th July, 2010. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner exported 12,000 metric tonnes of synthetic fabrics to the foreign buyer. 4. By a letter dated 20th July, 2010, the petitioner offered to sell to the foreign buyer, its stock of 1,11,080 metres of different varieties of synthetic fabrics in a lot of 7126 Kgs. at the attractive rate of 3 US $ for per kilogram, 1007 pieces of synthetic sarees at the rate of 9 US $ per piece, and 9 Ornis at 1 US $ per piece. 5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner offered the foreign buyer a low price, for stocks which had been lying with the petitioner for some time, having regard to its long standing business relationship with the foreign buyer. 6. After exchange of some correspondenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the trucks loaded with consignments of fabrics and garments have been detained since 12th/13th August, 2010 without any authority of law. No order under Section 110 has been issued. 14. Mr. Banerjee argued that if an order of detention had been passed under Section 110, the petitioner could have applied for provisional release under Section 110A.. 15. Citing the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Om Udyog v. Union of India reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 547 (P H) Mr. Banerjee submitted that the goods could not have been indefinitely detained without authority of law. 16. It is stated that summons was issued to the Director of the petitioner Sri Dipak Verma to appear before the officers of the Director of Revenue Intelligence on 22nd August, 2010. The Director duly appeared and also submitted documents under cover of a letter dated 23rd August, 2010. 17. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence also summoned Sri Dipak Singhania, Director of M/s. Singhania Sarees Pvt. Ltd. from whom the petitioner had purchased the fabrics and sarees in question. 18. Mr. Banerjee pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were intended to be exported under Non-incentive Scheme or not could not be established in the absence of the bill of export. 27. Mr. Bharadwaj pointed out from the affidavit-in-opposition that during the financial year 2010-11, the petitioner had exported 70 consignments of which 65 consignments were exported under the DEPB Scheme. Had the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence not intercepted the consignments, the same may have been exported under the DEPB Scheme. 28. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is also alleged that two amendments had been made in the proforma invoices, submitted by the petitioner, to enhance the letter of credit coverage to cover the excess quantity of goods. The rate of synthetic fabrics was found to have drastically been changed from Rs. 2 US $ (sic) per metre to 3 US $ per kg. by adding stock lot . 29. There are also allegations that there were discrepancies between the valuation of the fabrics and sarees in Bangladesh and in India. The manipulations, it is alleged, are with a view to defraud revenue. 30. It is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Suffice it to note t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession, the goods were seized. 38. The proviso to Section 110(2), however, empowers the Commissioner of Customs to extend the aforesaid period of six months by a further period of not exceeding six months on sufficient cause being shown. 39. It appears that a notice DRIF No. 110/Kol./APP/2010/Part- SJ/377-379 dated 31st January, 2011 has been issued to the petitioner purportedly under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act for extension of time to issue show cause notice under Section 124(a) for a further period of six months. 40. The notice is apparently without authority. There was no scope for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue any notice to the petitioner under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 41. Moreover, the authorities have proceeded on the basis that the goods have been detained in exercise of power under Section 110 and accordingly purported to issue the aforesaid notice under Section 110 sub-section (2). 42. It, however, appears that there is actually no order of seizure or detention under Section 110 on the owner of the consignments. The limitation of six months to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
