9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have easily taken back the goods and gone, but he did not do so. The expression reason to believe is distinct from reasonable belief and 'suspicion'. In this case, only after obtaining a certificate from the Wild Life Authorities that the goods in question is made of Red Sanders, the Seizure Officer of the Customs Department had the reason to believe that it is liable for confiscation. Therefore, the act of the Customs Officers in waiting for opinion from the Wild Life Authorities before taking action under Section 110 of the Act cannot be said to be illegal. The case at hand was investigated by the Customs Authorities themselves and not by an officer of the DRI. The power of the Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24.07.2000 from the consignment for further verification. 3. Thereupon, the Regional Dy. Director (WLP), Southern Region, Chennai, in his letter to the Customs, dt. 16.08.2000, stated that the samples drawn were tested by the Scientists of Institute of Wood Science Technology (Indian Council of forestry Research Education) Bangalore and that tests revealed beyond doubt the items attempted to be exported were 'Musical Instruments Parts made out of Red Sanders Wood' (Pterocarpus Santalinus). He has recommended for confiscation of the goods as Red Sanders was listed in Appendix -2 of schedule -2 of EXIM policy and Appendix II of CITES as a restricted item of export. 4. The case was referred to the SIIB for further inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wooden leg charis made of Padak wood , worth an FOB value of ₹ 18,74,740/- (as given in annexure II) under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Mr.Raveekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon an unreported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27.10.2015 passed in W.P.No.3374 of 2015 etc. batch of cases (M/s Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Limited represented by its Managing Director D.Sukumaran, Chennai 1 vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Chennai and another etc.) submitted that challenge to the show cause notice is not a bar, but must satisfy the following tests: (i) Where the notice is issued without authority/jurisdiction, (ii) Where the notice is issued beyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, would pass orders after hearing the parties and not otherwise. Therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submission of Mr.Raveekumar. 8.1 Mr.Raveekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the show cause notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation, for which, he relied upon Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which says that show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Act should be given within six months of the seizure of the goods. According to Mr.Raveekumar, the goods in this case were seized as early as 03.07.2000, the date on which the Bill of Entry was filed by the party and that show cause notice was issued only on 17.03.2001, which is beyond the period of limitation. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substance because when the petitioner presented the goods with the documents, at that time itself, the Customs Authorities informed the petitioner that goods will not be accepted, unless he produces the certificate from the Wild Life Authorities. The petitioner could have easily taken back the goods and gone, but he did not do so. 9. Further, under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the Customs Officer, can seize an article only when he has reason to believe that it is liable to confiscation. The expression reason to believe has been defined in the Indian Penal Code as follows:- A person is said have reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise . The expression reason to believe is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
