9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to defeat the right created under sub-section (2) of Section 110. Grant of extension of time as provided in the proviso affects the right which is created under sub-section (2) of Section 110 in favour of the person from whom the goods have been seized. If no notice under Section 124 is issued within a period of six months from the date of the seizure, the persons from whom goods are seized is entitled to return of goods as a matter of right. Appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 21 of 2016 with Notice of Motion No. 335 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - A.S. Oka and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Appellant. Shri Anil Balani with Ms. C. Pooja Reddy, for the Respondent. ORDER P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. With a view to appreciate the controversy a brief reference to the facts will be necessary. The Respondent - Assessee who is stated to be an importer imported vide Bill of Entry dated 8th April, 2014 raw pearls which were seized on 29th May, 2014 as prima facie, the Revenue found that there is a misdeclaration and/or that the goods were under valued. 2. The Commissioner of Customs, C.S.I. Air ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was established and as the Commissioner was satisfied that there existed sufficient cause, for reasons recorded, the Commissioner extended the time by a further period of six months. He would submit that there was no reason for the Appellate Tribunal to interfere with the said finding of fact which was based on grounds set out in the notice. He would submit that no interference is called for. 4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal as well as the order which was impugned before the Appellate Tribunal which was passed by the Commissioner. 5. Under sub-section (1) of Section 110, a power of confiscation of the goods is conferred on the proper officer. What is material for our consideration is sub-section (2) and its proviso which reads thus :- (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized : Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d there may be prejudice to that right if he is not accorded an opportunity to put forward his case in the proceeding. In other words, the issue is whether there is a right in a person from whose possession goods are seized and which right may by prejudiced or placed in jeopardy unless he is heard in the matter. It cannot be disputed that Section 110 sub-section (2) contemplates either notice (within six months from the date of seizure) to the person from whose possession the goods have been seized in order to determine whether the goods should be confiscated or the restoration of the goods to such person on the expiry of that period. If the notice is not issued in the confisaction proceedings within six months from the date of seizure the person from whose possession the goods have been seized becomes immediately entitled to return of the goods. It is that right to the immediate restoration of the goods upon the expiry of six months from the date of seizure that is defeated by the extension of time under the proviso to Section 110(2). When we speak of the right of the person being prejudiced or placed in jeopardy we necessarily envisage some damage or injury or hardship to that ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The verification report of overseas inquiry is also awaited which is essential to verify the declarations made by the shipper at origin. 2.3 The SIIB has stated that the perusal of the past Bills of Entry, and verification of the invoices and local purchase details is likely to take time and will require extensive investigation. 2.4 I find that as further investigations are still required to be done, extension of time limit of six months is justified in the present case, in terms of proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In respect of my above finding, I would like to draw ratio from judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in (a) Harbanslal v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs = 1993 (67) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.) and (b) Manick Chand Paul and Others, etc. v. UOI and Others = 1984 (18) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). In both the above judgments, the Hon ble Apex Court upheld the authority provided under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, for extending time limit, for issue of Show Cause Notice. 10. We have perused the show cause notice dated 25th November, 2014. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the order-in-original are reproduction of what is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
