9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chinar Electronics and the petitioner under which the petitioner agreed to sell and deliver video magnetic pancakes and video cassettes without spools (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) to one M/s. Chinar Electronics. Payment for the said goods was to be made by negotiation through the bank of M/s. Chinar Electronics i.e., VYSYA Bank. 2. Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner shipped the said goods to Calcutta. The documents of title were forwarded by the petitioner to the bankers of M/s. Chinar Electronics for retirement. The documents were returned to the petitioner by Vysya Bank under cover of a letter dated 9-9-1985 on the ground that M/s. Chinar Electronics had failed to retire the same. Correspondence ensued between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon Section 124 of the Act to contend that the order of confiscation could not have been passed without giving the petitioner who was the owner of the goods, notice in writing. 4. The petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sampat Raj Dugar v. Collector of Customs, New Custom House, Bombay Ors. reported in 1988 (15) ECR 338. The facts in that case are substantially similar to the facts in this case. The Bombay High Court quashed the order of confiscation and directed re-shipment of the goods to the owner. In this case the petitioner merely prays for an opportunity to be heard by the Collector of Customs. 5. It is contended on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 110 of the Act unless notice under Section 124 is given within 6 months of the seizure of the goods, the goods are required to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The period of 6 months could be extended for another period of 6 months on sufficient cause by the Collector of Customs. The Collector of Customs had granted extension of time to the Customs Authorities under the proviso to Section 110 and the notice under Section 124 was issued after the period of 6 months had expired from the date of seizure. The Court held that such extension could not be granted without giving an opportunity to be heard to the person who had a vested right to the return of the goods. The Court also construed the provisions of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. The definition of importer in Section 2(26) is irrelevant. The Section speaks of notice to the owner. 10. The respondent's Counsel is also not correct in his contention that in the Bombay case referred to above, the goods had been authorisedly imported. In fact, in that case it was alleged that the importer had violated the provisions of the Import Control Order 1955. The Bombay High Court held - "As between the owner and the person holding himself out to be the importer, it is the former who takes precedence. In the instant case it was only for the limited purpose of obtaining delivery of the goods, that respondent No. 3 had presented herself as the importer. Title to the goods had not passed to her, for she had not retired the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
