9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dated 2nd March 2015. 2. The point urged is that a show cause notice ('SCN') had to be issued to the Petitioner within six months of the date of seizure of the goods in terms of Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('CA'). However, no such SCN has been issued till date. It is further contended that in terms of the proviso to Section 110 (2) of the CA till date there is no order passed by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of Customs extending the period for issuance of SCN. It is pointed out that although one year and three months have lapsed since the date of seizure of the goods, till date no SCN has been issued. 3. Notice was issued in this petition on 20th May 2016 to enable the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn up by the Customs Department. The case of the Customs Department is that there was mis-declaration of some of the imported tyres. It is stated that there were 2960 old and used tyres apart from 539 new tyres of Wanli brand. There was also mis-declaration in respect of 2414 new tyres of Bridgestone, Goodyear and Michelin. 8. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents did not grant provisional release of the goods despite several requests. Meanwhile, the statements of the partners of the Petitioner were recorded under Section 108 of the CA on 13th July 2015 and 10th August 2015. An SCN was issued on 27th August 2015 to the Petitioner. However, the said document is titled 'Show Cause Notice', it is in fact a SCN asking the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tending the time for issuing the SCN, a SCN was in fact issued in terms of Section 110 (2) CA. The Petitioner is categorical that no such SCN has been issued to it till date. Thus the un-rebutted position is that even after the lapse of the extended period of six months after the seizure of the goods, no SCN under Section 110 (2) CA has been issued to the Petitioner. 11. Mr. Kaushik sought to persuade the Court to examine the SCN dated 28th August 2015 which speaks of the Petitioner's involvement in the alleged illegal import. However, since the only point urged as far as the Petitioner is concerned is the non-compliance with the mandatory time-limits set out in Section 110 (2) of the CA, it is not considered necessary to examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
