TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths. In these circumstances and in the absence of any statutory guidelines in regard to the stopping of time, as it were, as alleged by the customs authorities it is not possible to hold that the time taken for adjudication of any issue has to be excluded while reckoning the six months period mandated by Section 110(2). Court is satisfied that the continued seizure by the customs authorities of the petitioner’s goods even after the order dated 19.07.2012 is unlawful. The goods so seized shall be released forthwith unconditionally. - WP(C) No. 5600/2012 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr. C.Hari Shankar and Mr. S.Sunil, Advs. Respondent Rep. by : Mr. Mukesh Arora, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by M/s. Auto Creaters, 903, Yogesh Tower, Fly Over Road, Chikuwadi, Boriwali (W), Mumbai 400092, against the provisional release order, as communicated by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), ICD, Tughlakabad, dated 20.03.2012 vide Letter No.VIII/ICD/TKD/SIIB/INV/Auto Creater/03/12, where in the full duty at enhanced value, plus interest and Bank Guarantee of 25 per cent of the differential duty amount, have been stipulated for allowing provisional release. 2. The appellant filled a writ in the Hon ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. No. 2522/2012 dated 18.04.2012 and honorable judges have directed the undersigned to take up this appeal for disposal within 15 days. The order has been received on 17.07.2012 and P.H. was un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , con-sequent upon vacation of seizure Appeal is disposed off as above. 3. It is urged by the writ petitioner that with the order of Commissioner, if there were any doubts as to the validity or the legality of the Customs authorities position about continuing with the conditions, the same were dispelled. In this regard, the petitioner alleges that the time limit prescribed under Section 110(2), i.e. six months from the date of seizure (extendable by another six months), defines the limit and also prescribes the conditions in which goods can be held. It is argued that the six months period expired on 11.7.2012, within which period a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act was not issued. The time was also not extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd things. (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 goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided that the notice referred to in Clause 9(a) and the representation referred to in Clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral. 6. Section 110A which speaks of provisional release of goods etc. states that the concerned customs authorities may in their discretion, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, release to the owner the goods or documents etc., seized on furnishing of a bond, in the proper form in addition to such security and conditions as may be imposed. As is apparent, Section 110A enables the concerned customs authorities to exercise discretion pending the issuance of show cause notice. This aspect was emphasized in Jatin Ahuja (supra) which noticed the previous decisions of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceed to believe on that basis that such person seeks to release the goods provisionally and on the expiry of the period of six months if notice is not issued under Section 124(a) then contend that the terms for provisional release of the goods are no longer binding as the period of six months has expired and no notice has been served. The period of notice is only when the respondents seek to confiscate the goods. If there be a provisional release order it is not within the jurisdiction of the respondents to proceed to issue the notice under Section 124. At the highest they can proceed under Section 110(1A) by following the procedure set out therein. In our opinion, therefore, as procedure for confiscation could not have been initiated pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
