9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases. Para-4 of the circular dated 08.02.2017 stipulated that at the time of seizure Panchnama was required to be drawn clearly mentioning the reasons to believe that goods are liable for confiscation. There is disputed issue as to whether driver of the vehicle had produced relevant documents at 21.00 hrs. on 19.06.2021 or not. In fact, at para 13 of the writ petition, petitioner has admitted that documents have been produced in the office of customs department, therefore, one has to draw inference that driver of the vehicle was not carrying the documents in respect of transportation of seized goods and other ancillary papers. Further, RUD-05 E-way Bill generated on 19.06.2021 9.26 pm and seizure is at 9.30 pm on 19.06.2021, some alleged discrepancies are reflected. Be that as it may, under Article 226 Court cannot examine disputed issues among the parties. The petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY For the Petitioners : Mr.Saket Gupta , Adv For the Respondents : Mr.K.N. Singh, Addl. Solicitor General Mr.Anshuman Singh, Sr. S.C. Customs Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid contention, petitioner has relied upon circular dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-7). In para-4 thereof, three ingredients were required to be fulfilled by the seizing authority namely, Panchnama, clearly mentioning the reasons to believe that goods are liable for confiscation. The other clause is not relevant for the present case. In support of the aforementioned contention, he has relied on the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Om Sai Tranding Company Anr. Vs. Union of India Ors. reported in (2020) 1 P.L.J.R. 297 (Para- 7, 12, 18 and 19). It is further submitted that for transportation of seized goods petitioner had valid documents which have been produced as Annexure-2 (series) and Annexure-3 (Invoices). In not complying section 110 of the Customs Act by the seizing authority, the impugned action of the respondent at Annexure-5 dated 19.06.2021 is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforementioned contention and submitted that Panchnama has been placed on record along with the counter affidavit at Annexure-R/3. It is also submitted that quoting of relevant provision which the petitioner is alleged to have violated suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceedings under this Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of- (a)certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b)taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or (c)allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (1-C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1-B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.] [ Inserted by Act 80 of 1985, Section 8 (w.e.f. 27.12.1985).] (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 Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n both the gold bars, which are as follows: - Valcambi Suisse (995) CHI Essayeur Foundeur These markings available in both the gold bars; found on the person of the employee of the respondent, intercepted by the DRI officials. The gold bars, with the recital thereon, is admitted to be that entrusted by the respondent to his employee; the person intercepted. The seizure memo of 24.07.2017, which was prepared at the DRI Regional Unit Patna Office, clearly indicated violation of Sections 7, 46 and 47 of the Act, as the reasons to believe. Section 7 speaks of appointments of customs ports, airports etc. Section 46 requires entry of goods on importation by presenting a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing as prescribed and Section 47 speaks of clearance of goods for home consumption. Hence, the reason to believe is very clear from the violations alleged and in the present case, there can be no challenge to the goods being sourced from outside the country, which is evident from a mere visual inspection; the Swiss markings were crystal clear to even a layman who does not have any expertise in the matter. The gold bars apparently, from the mere inspection were not sourced from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
