9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 01.06.2011. The Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the container on 13.07.2011. On 14.07.2011, the petitioner sought provisional release of goods which was allowed but the petitioner has not sought the release of goods on account of the onerous conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods. A show cause notice in terms of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 19.09.2012. The assertion of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 110 of the Act, the authorities have a right to seize the goods if they have a reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. Once the goods are seized, a show cause notice is required to be issued within six months or with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral." There is no dispute about the factual position as asserted by the petitioner. However, Mr. Aggarwal learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the show cause notice has been issued though even after filing of the writ petition but that will not entitle the petitioner for release of goods. He relies up on the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Akanksha Syntex (P) Limited vs. Union of India and others passed in C.W.P No. 6030 of 2012, decided on 30.11.2012. Further reference has been made to a judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Jatin Ahuja vs. Union of India, 2013 (287) E.L.T 3 (Del) wherein it has been held that the seized goods are bound to be released if show cause notice is not issued within six months or the extended period, if any. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the stand of the Revenue in resisting the claim of the petitioner for release of the goods is not tenable. The Supreme Court in I.J. Rao's case (supra) has considered the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act and observed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. However, where no action is initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act within six months or extended period stipulated under Section 110(2) of the Act, the person from whose possession the goods were seized becomes entitled to their return. The remedy of provisional release is independent of remedy of claiming unconditional release in the absence of issuance of any valid show cause notice during the period of limitation or extended limitation prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. With due respect, we are unable to subscribe to the interpretation to the contrary placed by the Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Singh's case (supra). The said interpretation is not borne out from the plain re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
