9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, necessarily recourse to the proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 110 is required to be taken to extend the period for a period of further six months - the proviso, confers powers on the Principal Commissioner of Customs or a Commissioner of Customs for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend such period if further period has exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the periods so specified. In the present case, the initial period of six months to release the consignment expired on 8 February, 2023, considering the date of seizure to be 8 August, 2022. The Deputy Commissioner however invoked the proviso by issuing a communication dated 7 February, 2023 to the petitioner at the first instance extending the time period merely by three months - Such extended period of three months by the first extension expired on 7 May 2023. Thus, the balance period which could be extended by further invocation of the proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 110 was a period of three months upto 11 August, 2023 so as to complete the period of six months under the said proviso - The second extension of two months expired on 11 Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing to Respondents to release the consignment vide Bill of Entry No. 9579795 dated 16.07.2022. (d) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing to Respondents pay the detention and demurrages charges incurred due to non-release of consignment. (e) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing to Respondents to compensate for the loss caused due to deterioration in the value of goods due to illegal seizure and thereafter non release of goods on provisional basis and illegal extension by Respondent No. 4 and 2. (f) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the impugned Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any further extension, a show-cause-notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 7 August 2023 which was received by the petitioner on the same day. In such show-cause-notice insofar as the third extension is concerned, the following statement came to be recorded: (18.) In order to complete the investigation proceedings in the subject case, the Competent Authority on 07.02.2023, 04.05.2023 and 12.07.2023 has granted approval for extension of investigation period for 6 months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court, contending that by operation of law the seizure of the consignment itself had come to an end and the goods were liable to the released to the petitioner on the ground that not only the period of first six months as provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 110 but also the subsequent period of six months as contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 had expired. It is thus contended that the show-cause-notice could not have been issued. It is therefore prayed that in the facts of the case the petition would be required to be allowed by setting aside the seizure. 9. The respondents hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, necessarily recourse to the proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 110 is required to be taken to extend the period for a period of further six months. As noted above, the proviso, confers powers on the Principal Commissioner of Customs or a Commissioner of Customs for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend such period if further period has exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the periods so specified. 13. In the present case, the initial period of six months to release the consignment expired on 8 February, 2023, considering the date of seizure to be 8 August, 2022. The Deputy Commissioner however invoked the proviso by issuing a communication dated 7 February, 2023 to the petitioner at the first instance extending the time period merely by three months (referred as first extension ). The said communication reads thus:- In connection with the above mentioned subject it is to inform that the competent authority has extended the time period of three months under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 for issuance of Show Cause Notice in respect of goods imported by you un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and valid extension although not informed / communicated to the petitioner. 18. We are not persuaded to accept Mr. Mishra s contentions. In our opinion, the facts clearly demonstrate that the last (second) extension which was granted was for a period of two months vide communication dated 11 May 2023 ( Exhibit-H ), expired on 11 July 2023. Thereafter no extension was granted to cover the full period of six months much less as informed to the petitioner as per the requirement of the proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 110. 19. Mr. Mishra s contention in regard to the extension dated 12 July 2023 purportedly being granted by the competent authority is to the effect that it was available on the file of the department also, cannot be accepted. If such contention as urged on behalf of the Revenue is accepted, it would be accepting something which is in the teeth of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110, which categorically requires the concerned officer to inform the persons from whom such goods were seized and that too before the expiry of the period so specified. In the present case, clearly there was no such communication subsequent to 11 July 2023, so as to inform the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, no warrant to issue a direction to effect such service, since there is a deemed service and information conveyed as to the reasons for extension. We have heard the arguments addressed on that aspect too and declined interference finding the reasons to be perfectly in order. (emphasis supplied) 21. On a bare perusal of what has been recorded by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, it is quite clear that the facts in the present case are completely distinct. In the case before the Kerala High Court, the petitioners had approached the Court even prior to the expiry of the extended period. It is in such circumstances, the Court had observed that since the period was still to expire being extended up to 14 October 2020, it was open to the department, even to make a service of the extension which would satisfy the mandate under the proviso to Section 110(2). Certainly these are not the facts in hand. The decision would hence not assist the respondents. 22. In the light of the above discussion, in our opinion, by operation of law, that is, by application of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 110, read with the proviso the seizure of petitioners goods has ceased to op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
