9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguing the plea of estoppel - The appellant cannot pick a line here and a line there, out of context and impute a motive, which a reading of the whole document does not disclose. A reading of the whole of the aforesaid notice dated 21st November, 2014 shows that the purport thereof is to seek information from the appellant qua the doubts entertained by the Customs Authorities and for eliciting the response, the doubts entertained have necessarily to be stated. - Though the senior counsel for the appellant at the beginning of the hearing had also handed over written submissions and insisted on reading the same but in view of having confined the appeal to the aforesaid contention only, need is not felt to refer thereto. We may also record t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tands vacated following matching the goods with the documents . 3. The appellant filed the writ petition from which appeal arises impugning the letters dated 15th November, 2014 and 21st November, 2014 of the respondent asking the appellant to appear before the respondent. The respondent claims to have so summoned the appellant in exercise of powers under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 4. It is the admitted position that the appellant is being so summoned since January, 2014 and has appeared before the respondent on a number of occasions. 5. The appellant filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises invoking the principle of waiver and promissory estoppel, contending that the respondent having vacated the order of seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant again took up the plea of estoppel contending that the order vacating the order of detention / seizure is an executive order. 10. We are unable to agree. We as such asked the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice to take us through the scheme of the Act. 11. Our attention has been invited to Section 110(2) which provides that if no notice under Section 124(a) in respect of the goods so seized is given within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Admittedly, no such notice has been given. The counsel for the respondent however says that Section 124 provides for issuance of a show cause notice before confiscating any goods or imposin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on 4th March, 2015. 2. The respondent has thereafter filed a counter affidavit and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the appellant. 3. However when the hearing on the appeal commenced on 13th April, 2015, the senior counsel for the appellant instead of addressing the questions culled out by us in the aforesaid order again started arguing the plea of estoppel. When we drew the attention of the senior counsel to the aforesaid order dated 2nd February, 2015, he stated that he was not aware thereof. Accordingly, the matter was passed over and a copy of the order supplied to the senior counsel for the appellant. 4. The senior counsel for the appellant after passover contended that though the detention on 29th October, 2012, 30th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al therewith so as to put a quietus. The said notice dated 21st November, 2014 is as under:- Gentlemen, Subject: Investigation in respect of procurement of High Eng Luxury Wrist Watches by M/s Johnson Watch Company - regarding. Please refer to this office letter of even no. dated 15.11.2014 wherein you were asked to submit necessary documents and remain present for verification of watches detained under various panchnamas. Further your attention is invited towards the undertaking dated 21.11.2014 in response to summons dated 15.11.2014 wherein it was undertaken to depute your authorized representative for verification of the documents submitted by you at the time of vacation of detention of watches. In furtherance to above plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ek information from the appellant qua the doubts entertained by the Customs Authorities and for eliciting the response, the doubts entertained have necessarily to be stated. 9. Though the senior counsel for the appellant at the beginning of the hearing had also handed over written submissions and insisted on reading the same but in view of having confined the appeal to the aforesaid contention only, need is not felt to refer thereto. We may also record that the counsel for the respondent in his counter affidavit supported by copies of the judgments handed over in the Court today has sought to address the issue highlighted by us in our order dated 2nd February, 2015 supra but again in view of the appeal having been confined as aforesaid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
