9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt accordingly directs that the goods seized shall be released unconditionally to the Petitioner immediately and in any event not later than two weeks from today. However, this will not preclude the Department from proceeding to take any further action as permissible to it in law including proceeding against the Petitioner under Section 124 of the CA. - Petition disposed of - W.P.(C) 4707/2016 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR VIBHU BAKHRU JJ For the Appellant: Ms. Anjali Manish with Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing counsel for CBEC with Mr. Dhanesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. O R D E R 1. The prayer in this petition under Article 226 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inclined to entertain the request for further time to obtain instructions from the Respondent. 6. The fact that the seizure of the imported goods took place on 2nd March 2015 is not in dispute. The case of the Petitioner was that the goods were purchased from M/s. Crown Enterprise in terms of a High Seas Sale Agreement on 25th February 2015. Upon arrival in India of the imported goods, i.e., New Radial Car tyres of Wanli Brand of different dimensions comprised in 2542 pieces of the value of US$ 49454, the Petitioner filed the above B/E dated 27th February 2015 for the purpose of home consumption and declared the value of ₹ 33,95,957.57. The Customs Officer however assessed the value as ₹ 34,29,917.15. The Petitioner ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. 9. According to the Petitioner, the fact of issuance of the above SCN dated 28th August 2015 was known to the Petitioner only much later. Meanwhile the Petitioner kept making representations to the Department for re-export of the imported goods. On 7th January 2016 the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Respondent seeking provisional release of the goods. There was no response to these requests. It is in those circumstances that the present writ petition was filed. 10. The case of the Petitioner that no order extending the period for issuing the SCN in terms of the proviso to Section 110 (2) CA has been passed pursuant to the SCN dated 27th August 2015 has not been controverted by the Department. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Del) . This Court held that the failure by the Customs Department to release the goods notwithstanding the expiry of the time limits under Section 110 (2) was unlawful. It is pointed out by Mr. Kaushik that the appeals of the Department against the decisions in Jatin Ahuja (supra) and Auto Creaters (supra) are pending consideration before the Supreme Court. However, there is no stay granted by the Supreme Court of those decisions. 13. In that view of the matter, the Court holds that that the action of the Department in continuing to retain the seized goods of the Petitioner, in respect of which the Petitioner has paid customs duty as assessed, without issuing a SCN within the mandatory time limit in terms of Section 110 (2) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
