9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried out at the premises of M/s Johnson Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd., and its employees, namely, Pushpak Lakhani (the Appellant), Ms. Shikha Pahwa (Store Manager), Mr. Pankaj Lakhani and Mr. Purushottam Jajodia. During the search, several watches, cash and foreign currency were seized. 3. The appellant filed an application seeking provisional release of the goods on 09.01.2013 but the goods were not released. The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court, which was disposed of on 08.10.2013 with an observation that the Writ Petition be treated as a representation which should be dealt with by the authorities concerned within three weeks from the date of the order. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by the Delhi High Court, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) passed an order dated 29.10.2013 that the issue regarding provisional release of the seized goods cannot be decided by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence since a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 [Customs Act ] for confiscation of the high-end watches and cash recovered from the appellant and Ms. Shikha Pahwa had already been issued. It was further observed that the Petitioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt as to whether the goods were at all available with the Department because the Department was not permitting inspection of the goods. Time was, accordingly granted to the learned Authorized Representative of the Department to seek instructions as to whether the goods were still available. 12. When the matter was taken up by the Tribunal, the learned Authorized Representative for the Department placed the letter dated 29.07.2021 sent by the Additional Director in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It has been stated by the Additional Director that 38 (foreign origin) plus 4 (foreign origin) plus 44 (foreign make) and 9 (old and used) watches, as mentioned in the panchnama dated 29.10.2012, are kept in his office safely in a sealed condition. 13. Shri Tarun Gulati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, while pressing the application that was filed for inspection of the goods seized on 29.10.2012, submitted that as the goods were seized in 2012, the applicant wants an inspection of the goods so as to ascertain the condition of the high-end watches before the appeal is heard. Learned Senior Counsel stated that in case the watches are not in a good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Authorized Representatives also submitted that rule 41 would apply only after an order is passed by the Tribunal and even otherwise the present application has not been filed under rule 41 of the 1982 Procedure Rules. 15. The submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel of the appellant and the learned Authorized Representatives of the Department have been considered. 16. Rule 41 of the 1982 Procedure Rules is as follows :- "Rule 41 : Orders and directions in certain cases - The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice". 17. A bare perusal of the above rule 41 indicates that the Tribunal can make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders. It further provide that the Tribunal may makes such orders or gives such directions as may be necessary or expedient to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. 18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has laid stress on that portion of rule 41 which confers power on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be maintainable only if some order had been passed by the Adjudicating Authority or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Board. This submission ignores the fact that only an application has been filed in the pending appeal and the prayer made in the application is to permit inspection of the seized goods as the Department failed to pass any order on the application filed by the appellant before the Department for permitting inspection. In fact, if an order had been passed, the same could have been subjected to appellate or revisional jurisdiction, if permissible under the Customs Act. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned Authorized Representatives of the Department that the application should not be entertained. 24. Learned Authorized Representatives also submitted that in the absence of any specific provision in the Customs Act which may enable the appellant to seek inspection of the seized goods, the appellant cannot be granted a right to inspect, even if rule 41 of the 1982 Procedure Rules permits for such a direction for inspection to be issued. This submission cannot be accepted. Section 129C of the Customs Act deals with procedure of Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41, the Tribunal can make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to secure the ends of justice. The appellant is seeking inspection of his own goods that were seized on 19.10.2012 for the reason that the condition of the goods seized nine years ago would be an important factor for deciding whether the appellant would like to pursue the remedy for provisional release of the seized goods. The appellant had also deposited an amount of Rs. 27,50,669/- on 28.11.2013 to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 28 (5) of the Customs Act. 29. Section 110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (1) of the section 110 provides that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods. In the present case the goods have only been seized under sub-section(1) of section 110 and have not been confiscated under section 111 of the Customs Act. The ownership of the goods, therefore, continues to be with the person from whom the goods have been seized, namely the appellant. The Department, however, is contesting the right of the appellant to inspect hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1962, which is para-materia to the provisions of section 129C (6) of the Customs Act, and observed as follows :- "It is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective (Sutherland Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Arts. 5401 and 5402). The powers which have been conferred by Section 254 on the Appellate Tribunal with widest possible amplitude must carry with them by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers, fully effective. In Domat's Civil Law Cushing's Edition, Vol. 1 at page 88, it has been stated: "It is the duty of the Judges to apply the laws, not only to what appears-to be regulated by their express dispositions, but to all the cases where a just application of them may be made, and which appear to be comprehended either within the consequences that may be gathered from it." 7. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, contains a statement at p. 350 that "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
