9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment Rules. Upon compliance of these conditions the goods were to be released to the writ petitioners within 72 hours. Directions were also given for participation in the adjudication proceedings before the Customs Authorities. 2. The goods in question were Fax Machines which had arrived at the Port of Calcutta in July, 1992. On 12th August, 1992 the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is undisputed that the writ petitioners prayed for warehousing of the goods pending investigation under Section 49 of the said Act, and this was permitted. On 10th February, 1993 an order was issued by the Customs Authorities under Section 110(2) of the said Act. By this order the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners. It does not appear that any reply was given to this letter. The writ petitioners reiterated their offer by another letter dated 20th May, 1993. This letter was also written without prejudice to the writ petitioners' rights and contentions. 3. In view of the inaction on the part of the respondent-Authorities in releasing the goods to the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners filed a writ application before this Court on 17th June, 1993 upon notice to the respondent-Authorities. In the writ petition the writ petitioners sought for release of the goods in question under Section 110(2) of the said Act on the ground that there had been no valid extension of the period of 6 months provided under the Statute for initiating proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of executing the necessary Bond. This was not made available to the writ petitioners. Ultimately, the Bond was made available to the writ petitioners through their Clearing Agent. The Bond was filled in and submitted. But the goods in question were, however, not released to the writ petitioners. An undated letter was made over to the writ petitioners by which the Customs Authorities have complained about the alleged defects in the Bond as submitted by the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners were accordingly asked to re-submit the Bond duly executed. It is to be emphasized that even till this date there was no whisper of the order dated 30th June, 1993 not having been passed upon instructions properly given and understood by the Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and execution of a Bond. 8. Thirdly, it was stated that the Customs Authorities had recently come to learn the fact which showed that the writ petitioner No. 1 was a front Company with no assets which were capable of meeting the demand of the Customs in the event the writ petitioners were ultimately unsuccessful in the adjudication proceedings. 9. Fourthly, it was stated that in any event the writ petitioners had no right to the return of the goods in question assessed because, in fact, the seizure had been withdrawn when the writ petitioners were permitted to warehouse the goods under Section 49 of the said Act and that, as such, there was no question of any time limit being placed on the right of the Customs Authorities to issue a No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing on 19th March, 1993 or at any time subsequent thereto, contended that there was no seizure of any portion. 13. According to the writ petitioner the seizure order was passed under proviso of Section 110(1) and was a prohibitory order which continued to subsist even when the goods were warehoused under Section 49 of the said Act. As far as the letters dated 6th May, 1993 and 20th May, 1993 are concerned, the writ petitioners have submitted that the letters were written without prejudice and in any event not accepted by the Customs Authorities and, therefore, the writ-petitioners were not bound by them. 14. On the question of the order of the Collector dated 28th January, 1993 it is stated that the order was passed within the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the records in instructing their Counsel. If they had not done so they cannot be permitted to approach the Court and obtain relief on facts which should have been known to them even when the writ application was moved on 17th June, 1993. The facts relating to the difference in duty, all appear from telex messages received by the Customs Authorities in 1992 itself. They were, therefore, fully aware of the nature of the claim and the basis on which they were seeking to raise a demand against the petitioner. There was no fact subsequent to the order dated 30th June, 1993 which could warrant the Court in reviewing its order dated 30th June, 1993. The only stand taken by the respondent authorities is in paragraph 10 of the application where it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
