9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of importing goods and that during the last five years the Custom Officers never raised any objection at the time of clearance of their goods. It has been averred that it has always complied with the requirements of Sections 17, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, 'the Act'). These provisions relate to assessment of duty, entry of goods on importation and clearance of goods for home consumption. 3. On 22-1-2009, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted a search of the factory and residential premises of the petitioner and detained 5400 Kgs. yarn, record and material as well as Rs. 4.2 lacs lying at the residence of the petitioner (P-1 to P-3) under the provisions of the Act. It has been alleged that on 23-1-2009, the revenue-respondent has even issued directions to the bankers to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner and his family members (P-4). The revenue-respondent also directed M/s. Angel Brokering Limited to freeze the account of the petitioner with whom it is maintaining D-Mat Account (P-5). It has been asserted that a sum of Rs. 3.99 lacs was lying with the said firm on account of sale proceeds of shares. 4. On 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Customs, Amritsar and a request was made for some time to file reply and for supply of relied upon documents (P-11). It has been claimed by the petitioner that no order extending the period for issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act has been served upon it. However, from the reply filed by the respondent in the case of M/s. Abhaas Spinners Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (CWP No. 7972 of 2009) they came to know that on 21-7-2009 the Commissioner of Custom has passed an order, copy of which was sent by ordinary post on 21-7-2009 but the same never reached the petitioner. The extract of the Despatch Register dated 21-7-2009 has been placed on record (P-12). 8. It is claimed that on 2-9-2009 and 8-9-2009 the petitioner made requests to the respondent to defreeze the balance lying in the bank and D-Mat account on the premise that no show cause notice in terms of Section 110(2) of the Act has been issued and the period of six months has expired from the date of seizure, therefore, the cash lying in accounts should be released. 9. The petitioner has also claimed that under Section 110(A) of the Act the respondents were required to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tune of 25%-67% of the actual import value was revealed. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to 5 importers involving differential duty demand of approximately Rs. 15.5 crores as also for confiscation of bank drafts, cash etc. 11. It has been further submitted that the intelligence gathered also revealed that the petitioner had also imported yarn from China adopting similar modus operandi of misdeclaration and undervaluation. Accordingly, searches were conducted on 22/23-1-2009 on the business/residential premises of the petitioner. The factual position as narrated in the preceding paras has been admitted in the return. However, it has been pointed out that on 22-1-2009 the statement of the proprietor of the petitioner was recorded and he was not able to correlate the detained imported yarn with the bills of entry and he gave an assurance to provide the details within a week. On 11-2-2009 a reminder was issued by the DRI to the petitioner to produce the bills of entry alongwith copies of other relevant documents pertaining to the detained goods. On 18-2-2009 again summons were issued to Shri Sandeep Jalota, Proprietor of the petitioner-firm. The samples of the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r search are not required to be conveyed to the concerned party. Furthermore, the Adjudicating Authority in para 11 of its order has held that the documents sought by the petitioner for filing the reply have no relevance for deciding the matter regarding extension of time limit. The documents requested by the petitioner will be relevant for them for filing the reply to the final show cause notice to be issued to them after completion of investigation. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that the controversy raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra. All the issues raised in the instant petition have already been dealt with in detail in a similar controversy, involving the same factual position, by a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) in the case of M/s. Abhaas Spinners Private Limited (supra). In the said case, the Division Bench has formulated the following two questions of law : "(A) Whether the goods in question continues to attract the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 after the petitioner-Company had relinquished its title under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, thus, wholesome violation of Section 124 of the Act and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that score alone. Furthermore, like in M/s. Abhaas Spinners Private Limited case (supra) the order extending the period of six months has not been communicated to the petitioner in the instant case also. Therefore, the reasoning given in the aforesaid case would fully apply to the facts of the present case, which we respectfully adopt.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to seriously dispute the aforementioned position.
In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s. Abhaas Spinners Private Limited (supra). Accordingly, the order granting exemption, if any, passed by the respondent, is hereby quashed. Since the period of six months has already expired, therefore, the detention Memo, dated 22-1-2009 (P-2), order of seizure dated 20-2-2009 (P-6) and order of confiscation of case dated 9-6-2009, under Section 111 read with Section 2(22) and 2(39), 120 and 121 of the Act (P-7) are also quashed.
18. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
