TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30th March, 2007 detaining the goods in the interest of justice and consequential relief by way of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 their officers, subordinates, servants and agents from implementing and/or giving any effect to the order dated 30th March, 2007 of respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner the consignment of Cosmetics was imported vide bill of lading dated 31st January, 2007 and as per the import document received from the overseas suppliers. The Bill of Entry dated 14th February, 2007 was filed based on the document received from the overseas supplier. The 1st Respondent duly assessed the bill with duty and levied duty thereon amounting to Rs.5,04,526/-which was paid on 2nd July, 2007. The goods were packed in 1213 cartons and detailed packing list was also filed along with the Bill of Entry showing the goods in each of the cartons. According to the petitioners the goods were examined by the officers of the Central Intelligence Unit working under the 2nd Respondent on 27th February, 2007. The officers found discrepancies and also that the items were in excess of the declared quantities. The goods were detained on 27th February, 2007. Thereafter th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they are seized. In the instant case it is submitted that no show cause notice under Section 124(a) was served on the petitioner on the expiry of six months and even till date. Consequently the petitioner has vested right to get his goods released. The mere fact that the Petitioner had made an application for provisional release and an order was passed, is inconsequential as the petitioner had neither paid the amount nor furnished the bank guarantee. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents are bound to release the seized goods. On behalf of the respondents a reply has been filed by one Mahender Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Intelligence Unit. It is not necessary to refer to the various averments therein except to the limited context of what is necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this petition. It is pointed out that the impugned goods were released provisionally pursuant to an application made by the Petitioner under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, by order dated 28th September, 2007 pursuant to a request made by the petitioner on 6th August, 2007 for provisional relea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. The next relevant Section is Section 110(2) which provides for release of goods after six months if no notice for confiscation of the seized goods is given under Section 124(c) of the Act. Section 110(2) reads as under :- "(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 are seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months." Before answering the issue we may point out that the settled pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease had been considered by the Department against payment of duty amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs and execution of bank guarantee of Rs.35.00 lakhs and was directed to make necessary arrangements and get the goods released on provisional basis. The petitioner by his letter dated October 1, 2007 on receipt of the communication for provisional release in para.8 without prejudice to other contentions prayed that they are furnishing bank guarantee for a total amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs instead of depositing Rs.15.00 lakhs and furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.35.00 lakhs as informed to the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner, though indicated that the bank guarantee may be accepted in fact did not annex the bank guarantee. In response to the letter dated 25th October, 2007 the petitioner was informed that the goods are being provisionally cleared and to comply with the same. The petitioners thereafter by his communication of December, 3, 2007 informed the respondents that the communication dated 28th September, 2007 calling for provisional release by paying duty is beyond the period of six months and to release the goods. The provisional order of release was made within six months of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
