9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j `0' Mile by the Kishanganj Custom Office alleging that betel nuts was smuggled article and was being transported. 3. Against the said seizure, C.W.J.C. No. 12197 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner Birendra Kumar Singh, who is a Transporter along with Sri Sai Trading Company, Patna, who was the owner of the said consignment of betel nuts, which it had booked with the petitioner at Gauhati for being delivered to M/s Maa Padmawati Traders, Nagpur after observing all the necessary formalities and preparation of relevant documents and after payment of requisite fee at the Check-Posts. 4. The said writ petition was heard at length and after considering the respective claims of the parties and the materials on record, it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of absence of any material to show that the goods were smuggled goods and were of any third country origin, the respondent-authorities should not have detained the truck and betel nuts loaded on it nor they should have seized the same, which acts were clearly violative of well-settled principle of law. Accordingly, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2011 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it is not a case of ignorance as claimed by the opposite parties rather they have shown by their conduct that they are intentionally violating the orders of the High Court. It was also claimed that against order dated 14.11.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12197 of 2011 the opposite parties had filed L.P.A. No. 131 of 2012 on 06.02.2012 and in that appeal a Division Bench of this Court passed order dated 25.04.2012 condoning the delay, directing issuance of notice to the respondents and staying the implementation and execution of order dated 14.11.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12197 of 2011. 9. It was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is apparent from the records that on the said date i.e. 25.04.2012 the opposite parties did not produce order dated 08.02.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22316 of 2011 before the Division Bench and concealed such a relevant fact only to obtain the interim order and, thereafter, by their acts, the opposite parties are dilly dallying the matter to prevent any final decision in L.P.A. No. 131 of 2012 as well as C.W.J.C. No. 22316 of 2011. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 14.06.2012, the opposite parties sent a lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner by the Superintendent at Head Office due to inadvertent misunderstanding of opinion of the Advocate in the light of order dated 25.04.2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 131 of 2012, but immediately after realizing that the same were flauting the order of this Court, the authorities recalled the said notices on 13.02.2012 and 13.06.2012, respectively. Hence he argued that neither there was any malice nor there was any intentional disobedience or violation of the order of this Court. However, the opposite parties tendered their unqualified apologies for any omission or commission on their part. 15. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that notices of personal hearing dated 09.02.2012 and 04.06.2012 have already been recalled by the authorities on 13.02.2012 and 13.06.2012, respectively and hence no case of contempt remains with respect to the issuance of the said notices. However, the matter remains with respect to the show cause notice dated 18.11.2011 issued by the opposite parties to the petitioner under section 124 of the Act after order dated 14.11.2011 was passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedure of the seizure, investigation and confiscation as provided under the Act, it is quite apparent that there is no scope for continuance of the investigation after the seizure and detention of the goods had been quashed by the court of law after considering the merits or otherwise of the claim of the respective parties based on their pleadings and materials. Hence the plea raised on behalf of the opposite parties with respect to investigation and confiscation is absolutely frivolous and ridiculous, to say the least, and had obviously been raised by their counsel merely to save them from the punishment of contempt, which they have clearly committed and continued committing it merely to punish the petitioner for his fault of approaching this Court. 20. It is also apparent from the claim of the opposite parties that they had tried to justify their action and simultaneously they had tendered unqualified apology. This double faced stance of the opposite parties is against the settled principle of law in such matters. The facts of this case clearly show that the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Prevention) Division, Forbisganj, District Kishanganj (opposite party no.3) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
