9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 1999. The Customs Authorities by an order dated 4th March, 1999 on the said bill of entry not only directed for examination of the goods but also directed the goods to be detained without assigning any reason and the said goods are lying seized though no formal notice of such purported seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, hereunder referred to as the Act, was ever issued. The said order, dated 4th March, 1999 was also recorded in the copy of the bill of entry of the petitioners. On 16th March the Customs Authorities issued an Appraiser's Query calling for submitting copy of the invoice of the manufacturer with justification on the coverage of licence. It is contended that the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents. Thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further in any manner whatsoever; 3.Mr. Ramesh Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submitted since no notice had been issued under Section 124 of the Act within the time prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act and the time having not been extended under the proviso to Section 110 of the Act, the detention of the articles is without jurisdiction and illegal. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shanti Lal Mehta v. Union of India Ors. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1715 (S.C.) and Gian Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1365 (S.C.) to support his contention. It was further submitted that the transacted value of the articles is sought to be rejected on the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, it appeared were satisfied as it did not issue further summonses. Submission was made that letters dated 9-8-1999 and 12-8-1999 are sufficient for compliance of the summonses issued by the authorities. Mr. Chowdhury submitted the respondents could have issued a notice under Section 28 of the said Act, duty could have been paid and the goods could have been released but unfortunately the said articles have not been released which is illegal and the investigation is mala fide. Prayer was made for release of the goods on payment of duty. 6.After hearing the submissions of the petitioners and the respondents I find no merit in the arguments put forward on behalf of the petitioners. It is a fact that summonses were issued under Section 108 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
