9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vide bill of lading dated 31st January, 2007 and as per the import document received from the overseas suppliers. The Bill of Entry dated 14th February, 2007 was filed based on the document received from the overseas supplier. The 1st Respondent duly assessed the bill with duty and levied duty thereon amounting to Rs.5,04,526/-which was paid on 2nd July, 2007. The goods were packed in 1213 cartons and detailed packing list was also filed along with the Bill of Entry showing the goods in each of the cartons. According to the petitioners the goods were examined by the officers of the Central Intelligence Unit working under the 2nd Respondent on 27th February, 2007. The officers found discrepancies and also that the items were in excess of the declared quantities. The goods were detained on 27th February, 2007. Thereafter the statement of the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 8th March, 2007. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties was pleased to release the petitioner on bail on 8th March, 2007. 4. A seizure memo was issued on 30th March, 2007 formally seizing the goods already placed under detention on 27th February, 2007. The petitioner on 29th May ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for provisional release and an order was passed, is inconsequential as the petitioner had neither paid the amount nor furnished the bank guarantee. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents are bound to release the seized goods. On behalf of the respondents a reply has been filed by one Mahender Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Intelligence Unit. It is not necessary to refer to the various averments therein except to the limited context of what is necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this petition. It is pointed out that the impugned goods were released provisionally pursuant to an application made by the Petitioner under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, by order dated 28th September, 2007 pursuant to a request made by the petitioner on 6th August, 2007 for provisional release. Based on that application the provisional release order was passed on 28th September, 2007. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the contention that the goods are still under seizure is not correct. The contention that no show cause notice has been issued within the statutory period of six months or till date is devoid of merit as the goods are already pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. The next relevant Section is Section 110(2) which provides for release of goods after six months if no notice for confiscation of the seized goods is given under Section 124(c) of the Act. Section 110(2) reads as under :- "(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 are seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months." Before answering the issue we may point out that the settled position of law in respect of Section 110(2) and notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962. Section 110(2) does not prescribe a limitation within which a show cause notice is to be issued. The only consequences of not issuing the notice within six months under Section 124(a) is that the person from whom the goods were seized would become entitled to their return. The Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons prayed that they are furnishing bank guarantee for a total amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs instead of depositing Rs.15.00 lakhs and furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.35.00 lakhs as informed to the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner, though indicated that the bank guarantee may be accepted in fact did not annex the bank guarantee. In response to the letter dated 25th October, 2007 the petitioner was informed that the goods are being provisionally cleared and to comply with the same. The petitioners thereafter by his communication of December, 3, 2007 informed the respondents that the communication dated 28th September, 2007 calling for provisional release by paying duty is beyond the period of six months and to release the goods. The provisional order of release was made within six months of the seizure. 9. Under Section 110A there is a power to provisionally release the seized goods pending order of adjudication on taking a bond in a proper form with security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require. It is, therefore, clear that from the date of seizure till the order of adjudication the Commissioner of Customs has the power to release the goods provisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
