TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld, therefore, be afforded one opportunity to file affidavits to substantiate their point of view on the issue concerned. It would not be proper to grant an interim order directing the release of the goods - interim order refused. - WP No. 216 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Debangsu Basak, J. Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Mohammed, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Adv. Mr. S. Basu, Adv.Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv. For the Customs. Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv. For DRI. ORDER The Court :- The petitioner complains that, the respondent is guilty of unauthorized detention of the goods belonging to the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had imported goods under the subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs) and submits that, every possible scenario under the Customs Act, 1962 with regard to the release of the goods have been taken into consideration therein. Learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to the definition of importer given under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that, even if, the respondent authorities releases the goods and the petitioner is found not to be the actual owner of the goods, then also, the respondent is not remediless. The respondents still continue to have the right to issue a show cause notice and initiate proceedings against the delinquent, in accordance with law. He submits that, an ostensible owner of the goods is to be considered as the importer of the goods within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities did not take the custody of the goods on such date. The order was for the purpose of inspection of the goods. An order for inspection of goods cannot be equated with an order of seizure. An order of seizure is required to be undertaken after fulfilling the prescribed procedure. In the instant case, the authorities cannot be considered to have taken possession of the goods on October 13, 2017, for the petitioner to claim that, the petitioner is entitled to relief under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to the conduct of the petitioner, he submits that, the petitioner claims to be a partnership firm. The relevant documents produced by the petitioner states that, the firm has two Directors. He submits that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... materials made available on record. The petitioner claims that, it is entitled to release of the goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 contemplates a situation 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. In the present case, the petitioner claims that, time period fixed under sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 must commence on October 13, 2017. The view of the DRI and the Customs is otherwise. According to DRI and Customs, the seizure happened on January 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afforded one opportunity to file affidavits to substantiate their point of view on the issue concerned. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to grant an interim order directing the release of the goods. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is not in favour of the petitioner in granting an interim order of release of the goods, in the facts of the present case. Interim order as prayed for, therefore, is refused. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date. Affidavit-in-Reply be filed within one week thereafter. List the writ petition under the heading For Hearing four weeks hence. It is pointed out on behalf of the DRI that, the DRI is not a party respondent in the present writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
