9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this petition, in short, are that petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Jain deals in the business of silver in the name and style of Suhel Metal Industries at Indore. The main business of the petitioner being melting of silver and silver ornaments to make silver slabs of a definite percentage. The petitioner No. 1 has also a shop at Bada Sarafa Indore. He is also engaged in buying and selling silver on commission basis. The father of petitioner No. 1 is petitioner No. 2 and he also deals in the business separately, Petitioner No. 9 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and is engaged in business at Agar in the name of Rajat Jewellers, Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are agriculturists, who purchase silver through petitioner No. 9, petitioner Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver and currency. 4. The petition has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that on receipt of information that Dhanya Kumar Jain and his son Mukesh Jain had received foreign marked gold biscuits and silver slabs of foreign origin and had agreed to deliver the foreign marked gold biscuits to one Ram Kumar Agarwal on 3-4-1989 and had delivered silver slabs to Kamal Chand Jain and Rajendra Jain, Mahesh Nagar, Indore, therefore, kept surveillance and as a result intercepted the car carrying contraband gold which was driven by Ram Kumar Agarwal. As a result of the search contraband gold was recovered and statement of Ramkumar Agarwal was recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In follow up action the premises of Dhanya Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is whether a notice as provided under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was given to the petitioners within six months of the date of the seizure. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there is nothing on record to show that such a notice was given to the petitioners within six months. The respondents have averred that a notice dated 25-9-1989 was served on the petitioners under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, but reading Annexure-R3 and Annexure R-4 it is manifest that no notice dated 25-9-1989 was served on the petitioners. Even the copy of the notice has also not been filed by the respondents with the acknowledgment of the aforesaid notice by the petitioner. The acknowledgment Annexure-R4 is perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to S. 110(2), the goods have to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. S. 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of S. 124 within six months of the seizure of goods the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. It had also been argued that under S. 123 it is for the person from whose possession the goods were seized to show that they are not smuggled goods. The aforesaid section is made applicable by virtue of sub-section (2) of S. 123 of respect of gold, diamonds, manufactures of gold or diamonds, watches and any other class of goods which the Central Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
