TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Jamshed Ansari For the Respondent : Mr.Pradeep S. Jetly ORDER P.C. :- The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of a concern which engages in the export of ready made garments. According to the petitioner, between May and September 2008 his concern had received orders for the supply of garments from buyers in UAE and London and that in accordance with those orders exports were carried out under 14 invoices and 56 shipping bills. The petitioner claims that the export value was ₹ 27.05 crores of which only a partial amount was realised. The petitioner states that exports have been carried out between 26 March 2008 and 22 September 2008. The export proceeds should have been received within one year and despite a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16A has not been followed. 3 An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The reply states that the petitioner was exporting ready made garments under the duty drawback scheme which were procured from domestic suppliers at prices ranging from ₹ 31 to ₹ 40 per piece, but which were declared at an FOB value of ₹ 340 to ₹ 360. The petitioner claimed a drawback of ₹ 31 per piece which was the maximum amount which could be claimed at the rate of 8.80% of the FOB value with a cap value of ₹ 31 per piece. The petitioner claimed a total duty drawback of ₹ 3 crores of which ₹ 2.95 crores was availed of against a declared export value of ₹ 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner stated that he had no knowledge about the business of import or export nor did he have any orders. The petitioner worked for Pradeep Mehta and his firm was floated on the instructions of that person. The petitioner had no share in the business. The petitioner stated that Pradeep Mehta was the owner of that goods exported under 56 shipping bills and Nitin Exports was only the medium for carrying out the export. The petitioner denied knowledge of the transactions in the current account of Vijaya Bank and stated that apart from having visited the bank for the opening of the account, he had merely signed blank cheques under the instructions of Pradeep Mehta at whose instructions all the transactions were carried out. Moreover it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Under Sub-section 3 of section 110, the proper officer is authorised to seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act. In view of the comprehensive definition of the expression goods in Section 2(22) to cover currency and negotiable instruments, there can be no manner of doubt that the power under section 110 can be exercised in respect of such goods, provided the proper officer has reason to believe that they are liable for confiscation under the Act. 5 The Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 contain inter alia provisions for the recovery of the amount of drawback where export proceeds are not realised. Sub-rule 1 of Section 16A p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the MK International vs. Union of India 2007 (209) E.L.J. 15 wherein it was held that the monies which were held in the bank account which is the subject matter of action should be relevant to proceedings under the Act. In that case, noting that there was no adjudication in respect of the liability of the petitioners provisionally or finally holding that the amount in the bank account represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods or was otherwise liable for confiscation or that the seizure of the account would be useful for or relevant under the provisions of the Act, the Court directed the authorities to pass an appropriate order within a stipulated period. 7 In the present case, sufficient material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 110, it is necessary that a notice to show cause should be issued expeditiously so that the liability if any, can be adjudicated upon in accordance with law. All the judgments to which the attention of the Court has been drawn emphasise that recourse to such draconian powers cannot be taken indefinitely without a proper adjudication being concluded. As we have noted earlier, the Respondents have stated before the Court through learned Counsel that a show cause notice shall be issued within a period of fifteen days from today and that the adjudication will be concluded on an expeditious basis. Taking on record the aforesaid statement, we find that the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. 9 The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
