9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner, and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents herein, the Court made the following order. This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case from the file of the first respondent, namely, the Government of India, represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, relating to the order dated 15-7-1981. In order No. 1036 of 1981 and quash the order of the first respondent in Order No. 1036/81, dated 15-7-1981. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Intelligence Officer of the Customs House declared the three parcel Bearing Nos. 4284, 2147 and 4042 to contain "Donation for temple declaration ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence and rendering them liable to confiscation under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, K. Subbaraj, L. Jayaraman, P. Dhanraj and V. Natarajan have rendered themselves liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also stated in paragraph 10 of the above order thus: "Shri K. Subbaraj, L. Jayaraman, R. Dhanraj and V. Natarajan were therefore called upon vide this show cause notice dated 1-9-1979 to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Customs House, Madras-1 within ten days from the date of receipt of this memo as to why the goods value at (1) Rs. 2,500/- c.i.f. Parcel No. Singapore-B 4284 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide and are liable to confiscation and that he is also convinced that Subbaraju is the person concerned in an attempt to import the goods unauthorisedly into the country attracting the penal provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order reads thus :- "I hereby order that the goods under seizure covered by parcel Singapore-B. Singapore-B. No. Singapore-B, Singapore-B 4042 3906 2147 4284 totally valued at Rs. 8,700/- c.i.f., be confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d) read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d) of the Act, it is but necessary that the articles confiscated should conform to any one of the descriptions of the glass materials described in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In other words, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that unless the glass materials that were confiscated in the instant case come within the purview of the description of the clause (glass) and the glassware articles mentioned in Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the procedure adopted by the authorities concerned and the decisions arrived at by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are all not in accordance with the law. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities concerned have not adverted to this aspect of the matter, namely, whether the confiscated goods come within the exemption notification or whether they conform to any of the sub-heading number of description found in Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act and unless this aspect is clearly gone into and evidence is recorded and a clear finding given, the penal provisions of Section 112 of the Act is not attracted on the basis of Section 111(d). Since there is no determination as to which category the articles come under the clause in Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, prevailing at the time of confiscation, the proceedings holding the petitioner liable, cannot be upheld as correct and in accordance with law. In this regard, evidence m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r finding regarding the nature of the goods seized and confiscated in the instant case and whether the goods conform to any of the items in the sub-heading number of Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, there cannot be any order passed against the petitioner under Section 111(d). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case under Section 111(m) of the Act against the petitioner had been given up and it is only under Section 111(d), proceedings had been taken against the petitioner herein. In this regard, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submits that in the present case, the baggage was found to contain glass materials whose value was more than Rs. 500/- and as such the requirements of the Baggaging Rules and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
