9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccompanied packages arrived at the Palam Airport from Hongkong booked on 2nd January, 1974 and other two packages arrived on 4th January, 1974 which were also booked on 2nd January, 1974. All these four packages received in Delhi were sent by Vishwa Nath and consigned to `self'. They were made over to the Customs Department, who called upon the petitioner to obtain the release of the packages. But the petitioner did not appear in spite of being summoned, until about two months later on 15th March, 1974 when he appeared before the Superintendent of Customs and made a statement that he had misplaced the landing certificate and that the packages offered to him for delivery were not owned by him and he declined to have the packages examined in his presence. The packages turned out to contain some goods the import of which was prohibited. The result is that the petitioner had disowned any connection with the four packages in dispute and so he did not mind their confiscation, if necessary, but if he admitted himself to be associated with them, the question of imposition of penalty and his prosecution for the offence would have arisen prominently. On 12th September, 1974 the Collector pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress on 10th September, 1974, but the house was found locked and the notice could not be tendered to the petitioner and was affixed outside the house of the petitioner. Since nobody appeared and objected, the Collector passed the impugned order according to law. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has denied the receipt of the said notice and he has attached a copy of the show cause notice dated 10th September, 1975, which has been served on the petitioner which indicates the reasons and the grounds as to how it is sought to be established that the petitioner is really the owner of the packages in dispute and had imported them without a licence or customs clearance permit in breach of the statutory rules and he was called upon to show cause as to why penal action be not taken against him. 5.Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :- "(1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods : Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of routine but only on being satisfied that there existed facts which indicated that the investigation could not be completed for bona fide reasons within the time laid down in Section 110(2) and that the extension of that period had become necessary and that the words "sufficient cause being shown" have been used in contradistinction to "reason to believe" occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 110 and that adequacy of the cause shown might not be a ground for such interference, but the enquiry to be held by the Collector had to be on facts. The court further observed in paragraph 16 that since the right to restoration of the goods in question had already accrued to the party from whom they were seized, he must have an opportunity of being heard in respect of extension of time. Finally, the court observed in paragraph 17 that the power under the proviso mentioned above was quasi-judicial, or at any rate, one requiring a judicial approach and consequently an opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the party before orders for extension were made. 6.In the case before the Supreme Court, the party did not disclaim the ownership of the goods and was claiming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clearly justified by the provisions of the Customs Act, which prescribed the manner in which the notice is to be given. This formality has been completed and if the petitioner chooses not to accept service of the notice, he cannot be heard to blame the Customs Department and in our opinion the rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector v. Charan Dass Malhotra, 1983 E.L.T. 1477 = AIR 1972 SC 689, has been substantially complied with. 10.So far as the question of existence of the sufficient material before the Collector is concerned, we find on the record the report of the Superintendent of Customs, dated 7th September, 1974 in which it is stated that the investigation had not been completed and so further time be allowed. The Collector allowed the application and extended the time. The extension of time has been proved to be fully justified on the material already available on record as well as the subsequent events brought to our notice. As noticed above, the petitioner had denied the ownership of the packages in dispute. The Customs authorities had, therefore, to discover who the real owner was and the discovery of the owner from the whole wide world wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
