9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DEEC scheme i.e., duty free without paying any customs duty for the goods imported and cleared. 3.The petitioner filed the Bills of Entry Nos. 50525 and 50523, dated 12-10-1995 of Synthetic PU lining for clearance under DEEC scheme in Group VII of the Custom House, Chennai. Likewise, another Bill of Entry No. 52442, dated 26-10-1995 of Synthetic PU lining was filed for clearance in the same group of the customs house. It is said that on 1-11-1995, examination of the goods was done, and the inspection report along with sealed samples was sent to appraising group. It is said that in November, 1995, the Customs Officers took over the Bill of Entries for investigation with regard to these three consignments. On 8-12-1995, the petitioner made representation to Assistant Commissioner of Customs, for the release of goods under the above Bills of Entry, and since the goods were incurring heavy demurrage and detention charges, the petitioner even showed willingness to pay duty in case DEEC duty free licence is not accepted. 4.Another Bill of Entry No. 62321 was filed on 20-12-1995 for clearance of Synthetic PU lining under DEEC Scheme, which was also simultaneously taken over for inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by any law. It is said that in most of the cases, more than 14 months have elapsed, and the same violates Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 7.In view of the detention for more than one year, the goods have also deteriorated, and they are in a very bad shape. The attitude of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to release the goods is in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is entitled to release the goods, especially when they are getting deteriorated in the Custom bonded warehouse, and that too without any payment of duty as per the conditions of Duty Free Import Licence. Since the attempts made by the petitioner is not successful till date, the petitioner has come to this Court for the grant of reliefs stated above. 8.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein they say that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, and even if there is any delay, the same was caused only by the petitioner, and the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the same. It is further said that there is no violation of the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. It is said that within a period of six month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eanwhile, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 8-9-1997. 11.It is the case of the respondent, that only because of the non-co-operation of the petitioner, the matter could not be proceeded with. From the date of seizure, show cause notice had been issued within six months, as contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, and once show cause notice has been issued, the Court should not interfere with the matter, and the same will affect the investigation that is going on. It is further said that under Section 110 of the Act, the date of seizure of the cargo is relevant and not filing of the Bills of Entry. 12.It was found that the declaration given by the Customs House Agent was not true, and the petitioner has manipulated invoices along with the Bills of Entry and misdeclaration of quantity. Only after receiving the information from the reliable sources and only after recovering the incriminating documents, the respondent had reason to seize the goods, and therefore, it seized the goods covered by each and every entry. It says that the present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 13.At the time of argument, learned Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Mad.) = 1980 (1) M.L.J. 346 (The National Industries by its Partners S.L. Anand and B.M. Anand v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Department, etc.) for the said purpose. I do not think that the submission of the Counsel could be accepted. On going by the facts, it is the definite case of the department, that all these Bills of Entry were received by it from the Customs House Agent only on 1-8-1996. If the Bills of Entry were in the custody of the Customs House Agent, and the same were handed over to the respondent only on 1-8-1996, either Section 17 of the Act or Section 47 of the Act will help the petitioner in any way. 17.Immediately after receiving the Bills of Entry, the respondent issue notice to the petitioner to appear before them and for one reason or other, the petitioner was seeking adjournments. It is seen that these Bills of Entry were handed over to the respondent only on 1-8-1996. The goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos. 16781 and 5017 were seized on 2-9-1996 and 20-1-1997 respectively. In regard to the remaining two Bills of Entry viz., Nos. 62321 and 18072, the petitioner was issued with a notice for investigation, under Section 108 of the Act, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 474 (Chuharmal v. Union of India), and in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.) = AIR 1989 SC 1884 (L.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs and Others v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh and Another). 21.In this connection, we must also note that a seizure cannot be effected unless there is reason to believe. Merely because these goods are in the custody of the Customs department, and are retained by them, and without their permission it cannot be removed, it does not amount to seizure. Seizure under law means, a deprivation of possession and not merely custody. The authorities by seizing, takes control of the goods and prohibits the owner from taking possession. Till then they are only the custody. When the goods are retained by the Customs department, it is only for the purpose of assessing the duty, and to verify whether the duty has been paid. But seizure could be effected only when a doubt enters in the minds of the authority, that the declaration by the declarant is not correct, and the goods that are imported are liable to be confiscated. It is at that moment, there is reason to believe, that the goods are liable to confiscation and gives the power to the proper officer to seize the same. 22.Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to the Tribunal and thereafter to have the case stated to the High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ignoring as it were, the complete statutory machinery. That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us. Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
