9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also the Collector of Customs, West Bengal was without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Basu on Aug. 21, 1968 the Customs Officer had purported to seize the aforesaid goods. Within six months from the said date of the seizure the respondents had neither returned the goods to the petitioners nor had served any notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the petitioners. Mr. Basu has further submitted that the purported extensions made under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 were illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as no prior notice was given to the petitioners. Secondly the last of the extensions was made after expiry of the previous period of six months. Mr. Basu's submission is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise who has been also designated as the Collector of Customs. West Bengal to adjudicate and also about his power to confiscate the goods whose continued seizure was prima facie in contravention of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.Mr. Basu himself has drawn to my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent. Preventive Service Customs, Calcutta v. Charan Das Malhotra reported in AIR 1972 SC 169. In Charan Das Malhotra's case the Supreme Court had upheld the order of a Division Bench of this Court regarding the scope of the power of the Collector to extend the period for giving notice of confiscation without providing any opportunity of hearing to the person whose good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kar, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 528 (Bom.) = AIR 1977 Bom 320. Thus there is a preponderance of the judicial view that failure to issue a snow cause notice within the time prescribed by Section 110 of the Act cannot fetter the power to initiate confiscation proceedings. I am unable to follow the contrary view expressed by Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J., as his Lordship then was, in Uma Rajeswarrao Patra v. Union of India, reported in (1977) 2 Cal LJ 266 because the said decision is not consistent with the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Charan Das Malhotra's case. The section does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given. The period laid down in Section 110(2) of the Act affects only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms, Calcutta and the Additional Collectors of Customs, Calcutta were appointed as Collectors in respect of the areas specified in the said notification. Mr. S.C. Basu, learned Advocate for the respondents, rightly submitted that by reason of the two notifications vide the Collectors of Land Customs and Central Excise. West Bengal became the Collector in relation to the entire State of West Bengal including Calcutta etc. the Collector of Customs, Calcutta was appointed in relation to the much smaller area. Both the officers being Collectors of Customs it was open to provide by administrative direction division and distribution of work amongst them. In the circumstances, the Collector of Land Customs and Central Excise being the Collector i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
