9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our T.V. were imported by one Marukh Mohammed on 25-10-1980 and he had paid the requisite import duty at the Bombay Customs Office vide Baggage Receipt No. 334651, dated 25th October, 1980. This Marukh Mohammed transferred the imported Colour T.V. and Video Cassette Recorder to petitioner No. 2, Babu Singh and the same were fitted in the Bus. On 17-11-1981, Officers of the Central Excise Department, headed by the respondent No. 1, Superintendent Central Excise (Preventive) visited the office of the petitioner and seized the said T.V. and Video Cassette Recorder along with the Baggage Receipt and T.V. Licence in the name of the petitioner No. 2, Babu Singh. 3. Petitioners have challenged the seizure on the ground that the requisite import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid great emphasis on the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, which empowers an authorised officer to seize the goods only if he has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that there was no such reason to believe for seizure of the goods in question. He referred to two decisions in support of his contention. They are Nathalla Sompathu Chetty and another v. Collector Customs, Madras (A.I.R. 1959, Madras 142) and M.G. Abrol and another v. Amichand Vallami and others (A.I.R. 1961, Bombay 227). We have carefully perused both these authorities and we are clear that they are distinguishable on facts. In the case of N.S. Chetty (supra) after the investigation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Baggage Receipt, filed by the petitioners, is questioned by the respondents, who have filed a photostat copy of the original, which apparently does not tally in its contents with the one filed by the petitioners. The matter becomes further mysterious because petitioner No. 2, Babu Singh, who is said to be the purchaser or the transferee of these items has reportedly denied to have ever purchased the same from the importer Marukh Mohammed. Since the matter is still under investigation and whether the facts stated by the petitioners are correct or not can only be decided after inquiry of facts, no writ of certiorari can be issued in these circumstances. 9. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Petitioners will pay the costs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
