9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch the aforesaid locker and he directed the petitioner to be present there. 3. On 4th April, 1966 the said locker was opened and searched. 246 wrist watches were found in it. Respondent No. 4 believed them to be liable to confiscation and he seized the said watches by invoking the provisions of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. On 14th October, 1966 the petitioner received a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act whereby respondent No. 4 asked the petitioner to show cause why the watches which had been seized should not be confiscated and why penal action should not be taken against him. This notice was issued more than six months after the seizure of the goods. 5. The petitioner sent a reply. According to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed to be released. Confiscation in respect of 41 watches was upheld but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,500/-. While holding that the show cause notice had not been given within 6 months, the Board rejected the contention that the petitioner was entitled to the return of the watches under Section 110(2) of the Act. 8. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Government of India. The same was, however, dismissed by order dated 24th/ 30th August, 1973. 9. In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the aforesaid order of confiscation of 41 watches and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,500/- is challenged. 10. The first contention of the learned Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 110. It may be that for some reason some smuggled goods may not be seized but nevertheless proceedings may be initiated under Section 124. In any case, this question is no longer res integra as far as this Court is concerned. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemant Bahadur Lama v. Union of India and Others 1982 (10) E.L.T. 872 had an occasion to deal with this question. It was observed by this Court as follows : "The law is thus clear. The two sections i.e. Sections 110 and 124 are independent. There is nothing in language of Section 110 of the Act to indicate that a fetter of limitation is imposed upon power of the competent authority to initiate proceedings under Section 124 of the said Act. A notice issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Division Bench it must be held that the proceedings under Section 124 against the petitioner could not be regarded as being invalid. 12. It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the present case 205 wrist watches have been returned. Learned Counsel submitted that there was no valid confiscation because the officer could not have reason to believe that the wrist watches were liable for confiscation if ultimately it was to be found that at least majority of the wrist watches had been validly imported. It is not necessary for me to comment on the merits of the decision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs which had partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and had ordered the release of 205 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
