9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at Kolkata on July 13, 2009. According to the petitioner, on his return to Kolkata from Hong Kong via Dhaka by a Bangladesh Biman Flight No. BG 091 on October 22, 2011, he was intercepted at the Netaji Subash Chandra Bose International Airport by Customs Officers of the Air Intelligence Unit. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was intercepted before he declared his baggage at green/red channel at the arrival hall of Airport. According to the respondents, he was intercepted after he walked out of the green channel. Factual disputes as to the exact point of time at which the petitioner was intercepted cannot unfortunately be decided upon affidavits in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) had been issued within six months. 7. The proviso to Section 110 sub-section (2), however, provides that the period of six months might on sufficient cause being shown be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a further period not exceeding six months. 8. Mr. Bharadwaj, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the period of six months had duly been extended by the Commissioner of Customs by a further period of six months by an order dated 19th April, 2012. The order of the Commissioner was communicated to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs by a letter dated 19th April, 2012 which was actually dispatched by post on 2nd May, 2012. 9. Mr. Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the letter dated 19th April, 2012 of the Assistant Commissioner was backdated. It is possible that this was done in a hurry having regard to the fact that the period of six months would have expired on 21st April, 2012. 11. The question is whether the order of extension suffers from such legal infirmity as to warrant the interference of this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the order of the Commissioner might have been better worded. However, on an overall consideration of the order it is clear that no one had appeared for the petitioner. Considering the investigation details and the need for further investigation, the period of time was extended by six months so that all aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person from whom the goods were seized was entitled to notice before the period of six months envisaged by Section 110(2) was extended. The point was considered again in M/s. Lokenath Tolaram, etc. v. B.N. Rangwani and Others (supra) by a Bench of four Judges of this Court and the Court referred to the view taken in Charan Das Malhotra (supra) but it declined to interfere because the appellants in that case had themselves waived notice concerning extension of the time. The Court did not specifically give the stamp of approval to the law laid down in Charan Das Malhotra (supra). 13. There is no doubt that the words 'on sufficient cause being shown' in the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act indicates that the Collector of Customs mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that Section 110 sub-section (2) contemplates either notice (within six months from the date of seizure) to the person from whose possession the goods have been seized in order to determine whether the goods should be confiscated or the restoration of the goods to such person on the expiry of that period. If the notice is not issued in the confiscation proceedings within six months from the date of seizure the person from whose possession the goods have been seized becomes immediately entitled to return of the goods. It is that right to the immediate restoration of the goods upon the expiry of six months from the date of seizure that is defeated by the extension of time under the proviso to Section 110(2). * * *&e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic interest." 15. In this case a notice was issued and the petitioner was called for a hearing on 19th April, 2012. The petitioner chose not to appear. Had he appeared, he might have been put to notice. He could have been put to notice of the intention to extend the original period of six months. 16. A speaking order of a Commissioner is not to be equated to a judgment of a legally trained judge in exercise of power of judicial review. The Court is only to see whether the basic ingredients have been taken into account. On a reading of the impugned order of extension as a whole it appears that the Commissioner has looked into all aspects of the matter. 17. Mr. Arijit Chakraborty referred to the provisions of the Passport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
