9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransistor radios, one trans-receiver and two binoculars together with certain books of account, were recovered. On a reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation as these were illicitly imported, these were seized by the officers under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statement of Shri Karthikeyan was recorded on 8-8-1969 where he deposed that the foreign liquor bottles including the empty bottles were purchased by him on different occasions from different persons but that he did not know the particulars of the persons in question. He also did not possess any bill or receipt for the purchase of these bottles. He admitted that the two trans-receivers, two transistors and one tape-recorder were purchased by him from some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikeyan under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Against the decision of the Additional Collector, Shri Karthikeyan filed an appeal with the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 8. The main contention before the Board was that the show cause notice in this case was issued more than six months after the seizure without extension of time in the manner contemplated in Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly that the goods in question has to be returned to the petitioner which was not done. It was further stated that since the show cause notice was not issued within the period stipulated under section 110, the goods could not be confiscated under section 111(p). The second contention before the Board was that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t notified under that section at the time of seizure. The Board however, found that there was sufficient evidence on record which established the fact that the petitioner was engaged in the smuggling of these goods and had acquired them illicitly. The Board noted that 89 bottles of whisky which was recovered from his residential premises could not have been for the personal use of Shri Karthikeyan and his customers. The Board has come to the conclusion that the offence of illicit acquisition of the goods has been established beyond doubt even if the provisions of section 123 ibid. were not invoked. The Board further observed that a deterrent penalty was called for in such a case and accordingly did not give any relief in the amount of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be sustained. It is also stated that the value of the goods put together could not have exceeded Rs. 2,000/- at the time of seizure in 1969. 16. Personal hearing was granted to the counsel of the petitioner on 5-7-1979 at Madras. 17. Consultant Shri P.N. Menon appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued the case. 18. The consultant pleaded that he is challenging the issue of the show cause notice on two grounds: (i) that it invoked the provisions of section 123 of the Customs Act, when actually this section had not been extended so as to cover `liquor, tape-recorders, wireless receiving sets etc.' Some or all the items were notified under section 123 only some time in 1974, whereas the seizure had been made and the case adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original proceeding has already been accepted by the Board. However, the department has adequately discharged the burden considering the fact that the goods in question had been notified under the provisions of Chapter IVA ibid. When goods are notified under section 11B ibid. no person can acquire after the notified date any notified goods except in accordance with the provisions of section 11D. The provisions of Section 11D require that when a person acquires such notified goods these must be accompanied by vouchers or there must be evidence showing clearance of the goods through customs. Such a person is required to take reasonable steps as specified by the rules. The goods were notified in notification No. 12-Cus., dated 3-1-1969 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur v. Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf [1978 E.L.T. (J 624) ]. The Bombay High Court has held that a proposition of law laid down by a High Court is binding on quasi judicial authorities throughout the country. If there were no other decision on the question whether the proceeding relating to confiscation of the goods can be continued even after the expiry of the period prescribed under sec. 110(2) Government would have been bound by the Calcutta High Court decision of 3-8-1977, reliance on which has been placed by the petitioner. Government, however, observe that on this question there are several pronouncements by various High Courts including the two decisions of the Division Bench of the Calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
