9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , DRI alleged that the petitioner had contravened provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to exportation of several items over a period of time. It was alleged that the duty drawbacks claimed by the petitioner were contrary to the provisions of various schemes and, therefore, contrary to provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner resisted the notice and required the respondents to furnish documents relied upon by them in the course of the proceedings. 3. It was contended that on 29-5-2008, the first respondent was appointed as adjudicator under provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Customs Act. The petitioner further states that dates of hearing were fixed by the said respondent. At that stage, he the petitioner applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice of the Board that the records seized in connection with offence cases are not being returned to the assessees in spite of repealed requests made by them. This not only causes undue hardship to the assessees, as they require such records for various statutory obligations, but it also unnecessarily occupies space in our offices. 2. In this regard, your attention is invited to the Board s Circular No. 42/88-CX, dated 24-5-1988 and No. 48/88-CX.6, dated 10-6-1988. As per these circulars, the documents/records which are not relied upon in the show cause notice are required to be returned under proper receipt to the persons from whom they are seized. I wish to reiterate compliance of these instructions. In fact, the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the respondent No. 2 and that the petitioners have undertaken to this Court to keep this property unencumbered. xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx 28. That apart, one fails to see as to why the documents which were not relied upon, were not returned to the petitioners. Some of the non-relied documents appear to have been given subsequent to the orders passed by the respondent No. 2, as can be seen from the acknowledgement of the documents which is relied upon by the respondents. 29. In this state of affairs, it will be appropriate to interfere with the order which the second respondent has passed and to direct him to make available the copies of the data stated to have recovered from the computers, which have become the basis of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
