9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making any investigation in respect thereto. The writ petitioner further prayed that all further proceedings and/or investigations in respect of such search and seizure be stayed. 3. M/s. Lea Min Tannery was granted import licence for import of the items as mentioned in Appendix 5 and 7. Said M/s. Lea Min Tannery authorised the petitioner Bulakidas Bhaiya to act as letter of authority holder for the purpose of importing goods under the said licence. 4. One M/s. Salem Oil Grease Co., Salem, U.S.A. authorised the writ petitioner to print and distribute in India literature explaining the products offered to Leather Industry by the said company. The petitioner printed and distributed the literatures in India with regard thereto. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the said goods. Thereafter the Learned Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.K. Basu (as His Lordship then was) directed release of the said goods by the Receiver in favour of the petitioner upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000/-. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is that the said search and seizure was invalid and/or illegal. 6. Sec. 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Assistant Collector of Customs or an Officer of Customs specially empowered in his behalf by the Board if he has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful or relevant to any proceedings under the said Act are secreted in any place he may authorise a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Examination Department at Jadavpur University. The petitioner contended that inasmuch as such samples had been drawn not in the presence of the petitioner as such the respondent authorities are not entitled to utilise the same against the petitioner. 7. As observed by the Learned Court below and as it is felt by this Court also that such contention of the petitioner is premature inasmuch as no final assessment has been made. As such this is not the proper time to agitate such point. However, in view of the observations of the Learned Court below and also according to us, such disputed question of fact cannot be entertained by a court discharging writ jurisdiction. In any event this Court is of the view that the points urged by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
