9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant an interim order directing the release of the goods. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is not in favour of the petitioner in granting an interim order of release of the goods, in the facts of the present case - Interim order as prayed for, therefore, is refused. - WP No. 220 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - MR. DEBANGSU BASAK, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv. And Mr. Shakeel Mohammed, Adv. For The Respondent : Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Adv. Mr. S. Basu, Adv. Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv. And Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv. ORDER The Court :- The petitioner complains that, the respondent is guilty of unauthorized detention of the goods belonging to the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 110 (2) of the Act of 1962. He relies upon (337) ELT 321 (Mad.) (M/s. A.S. Enterprises-Vs-The Commissioner of Customs) and submits that, every possible scenario under the Customs Act, 1962 with regard to the release of the goods have been taken into consideration therein. Learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to the definition of importer given under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that, even if, the respondent authorities releases the goods and the petitioner is found not to be the actual owner of the goods, then also, the respondent is not remediless. The respondents still continue to have the right to issue a show cause notice and initiate proceedings against the delinquent, in accordance with law. He submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seizure, cannot be construed to be as seizure of goods made by the authorities. According to him, the authorities did not take the custody of the goods on such date. The order was for the purpose of inspection of the goods. An order for inspection of goods cannot be equated with an order of seizure. An order of seizure is required to be undertaken after fulfilling the prescribed procedure. In the instant case, the authorities cannot be considered to have taken possession of the goods on October 13, 2017, for the petitioner to claim that, the petitioner is entitled to relief under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to the conduct of the petitioner, he submits that, the petitioner claims to be a partnership firm. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s did not appear before the authority. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The petitioner claims that, it is entitled to release of the goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 stipulates that, 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 should be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. In the present case, the petitioner claims that, time period fixed under sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 must commence from October 13, 2017. The view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seizure. The respondents have a particular view on the subject. They should, therefore, be afforded one opportunity to file affidavits to substantiate their point of view on the issue concerned. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to grant an interim order directing the release of the goods. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is not in favour of the petitioner in granting an interim order of release of the goods, in the facts of the present case. Interim order as prayed for, therefore, is refused. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date. Affidavit-in-Reply be filed within one week thereafter. List the writ petition under the heading For Hearing four weeks hence. It is pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
