9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ornaments were despatched through Postal Department by parcel from Bombay to Calcutta declaring the contents correctly. On receipt of an intimation from the Bara bazar Post Office the petitioner No. 2 went to the post office to take delivery of the parcels in question but the petitioner was prevented from taking delivery of the said parcels and was directed by some customs officers to make arrangements for examination of the contents of the parcel. The petitioner it is alleged declared the contents and produced the original of the said bills of the supplier. The petitioner took delivery of the parcel from the post office and made over the same to the customs officers for verification of the contents. It is alleged that on verification of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enclosed sheet there is reason to believe that the gold of foreign origin in the form of the crude and unfinished ornaments weighing 2021.900 grams as mentioned in the enclosed schedule have been imported into India without a valid import permit from the Reserve Bank of India, as required under Government of India, Ministry of Finance Notification No. 12(11) F. 1/48 dated 25-8-1948 (as amended) issued under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 2.Accordingly, the said foreign gold in the form of crude and unfinished ornaments are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.And whereas you were concerned with and/or abeted possession/removal, purchase, disposal of the goods or otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses who has made statement behind the back of the petitioner be produced at the adjudicating proceeding by letter dated 28th December, 1967. In reply to the said letter the Assistant Collector of Customs (Technical), West Bengal, Calcutta by letter dated 4th January, 1968 intimated that the Collector has rejected the prayer for examination of the witnesses. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24th May, 1967 extending the period of seizure by two months and show cause notice dated 25th July, 1967 and the proceeding with the adjudication on the basis thereof, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. 3.In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent it is inter alia stated that the ornaments seized were crude and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act and the respondent No. 1 and/or 2 extended the period on his personal satisfaction that there was sufficient cause for doing so. 4.It is stated that the show cause notice is valid one and there is no infirmity in the show cause notice. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 and/or 2 had not made up his mind nor has come to any definite conclusion and prejudged the issue before the completion as alleged. On the basis of this pleadings the parties went to trial. 5.Mr. Ganandra Narayan Roy on behalf of the petitioner, firstly, contended that the order dated 24th May, 1967 which was communicated by letter dated 27th May, 1967 by which the respondent No. 1 has extended the time under section 110(2) by two months is illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er before order of extension was made". In the said case it has been held that after the expiry of 6 months the petitioner has vested civil right to get back his gold. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Calcutta High Court directing the restoration of the gold seized. 7.The next question which is argued by Mr. G.N. Roy is that even before the show cause notice was issued the authorities concerned had already made up their mind about the guilt of the petitioner, inasmuch as in the brief outline of the allegation. It appears from the last portion thereof, (paragraph 1), it is stated that they have already made up their mind that the golds were illicitly imported and that being gold which was seized and having a fineness of 999.3 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws : - "Not only are the charges made vague and unspecific, the Additional Collector of Customs in para 4 of the notice says that the appellant had failed to prove the legal importation of the remaining 110 pieces of watches. In other words, the adjudicating officer has already made up his mind although section 124 says that he should not do so without giving an opportunity to the person affected of making representation against the proposed grounds of confiscation of penalty. The object of a notice under section 124 is to give to the person affected an opportunity to prove legal important and not to disprove a conclusion already arrived at by the authorities." 9.In my opinion, the said observation apply in forces in this case also. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
