9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be raised by him and the allegations sought to be put forth against the customs officials - the petitioner shall be given full opportunity to establish his case, that insofar as the goods once having been released in his favour, there was no power in the customs authority to take them to their custody, which aspect shall be addressed at the enquiry, and if the finding is that there was such power available to the authorities, the goods, which have been seized from the custody of the petitioner, shall be released in his favour, as vehemently claimed by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioner to establish his several contentions and allegations at the enquiry. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees after repackaging. The officials of the respondent-authorities are said to have seized the goods after it was released to the petitioner s custody and after the goods were loaded in to the vehicle specified in the warehousing receipt and were taken away without an inventory mahazar being draw n. According to the petitioner, without the authority of law, the officials of the respondent-authorities have ta ken the goods into their custody, without any explanation. Four days later, a raid was conducted at the home and office premises of the petitioner under a mahazar, though no incriminating material was reported to have been seized. 3. It is the further allegation that summons was issued without there being any charge under any of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pite. Therefore, the petitioner has no confidence in any enquiry being held by the Customs Officers as the respondents-authorities themselves were responsible for proving the charges against the petitioner without any basis. 4. While the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Navadagi would submit that these allegations are in the air and without any basis. The petitioner having declared certain goods and the goods having been cleared did not move out of the custom s area and it was later discovered that the petitioner had not declared the actual goods that were being imported. In that, it was declared that the petitioner had imported computer chips, but it was noticed that the laptops were imported. Therefore, action was taken and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion that, it would totally prejudice the interest of the petitioner, as is evident from the action of the respondents. So, the learned counsel would submit that, in the alternative, the petition may be relegated to the Tribunal, which is the appellate authority for him to straightaway challenge the action of the respondents, for, it is certain that the findings will be returned against the petitioner in any case, if the enquiry is to be conducted by the same person, who had seized the goods and if the same officer is again appointed as the enquiry officer, his entitlement to conduct an enquiry would further prejudice the case of the petitioner. 7. It is however ascertained that the enquiry is not being conducted by the person, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
