TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The letter requested that the T.V. set may be seized for carrying out further investigations in the matter. On 5th February, 1970 Shri Bhatnagar, Customs Inspector visited the residence of the petitioner for seizing the T.V. set. The dispute between the parties is whether this T.V. set was actually seized by Mr Bhatnagar on the date or not. But it is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in the office of the Collector of Customs and gave an undertaking that he would not dispose of the same and would produce the same as and when required. The contention of the petitioner is that after seizing of the T.V. it was not physically removed because of the acceptance of the undertaking by Mr Bhatnagar on behalf of the Department. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be disturbed in terms of his undertaking. As the petitioner apprehended that the Department was likely to interfere with his possession the present writ petition was filed. 2. The respondents, however, submit that the T.V. set was not actually seized by Mr Bhatnagar. They further say that since there was no seizure by the Department, there was no question of non-compliance of Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Act. Their further case is that the T.V. set in question was smuggled one. They rely upon on the statements of Capt. V.K. Sehgal and Shri Hitler Gaspar (Annexures R2 R3). Capt. V.K. Sehgal had stated in his statement that he had not booked the consignment in question. Hitler Gaspar who was working as I. A. Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember, 1971. Number of adjournments were taken by the respondents to file Annexures R2 and R3 which although mentioned in the writ petition were not filed along with the writ petition. On December 19, 1972 the learned Judge hearing the matter gave the respondents last opportunity to produce the said documents. It appears that the documents were filed sometime thereafter. However, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents prayed for early hearing of the writ petition. 4. It is difficult to believe that the Customs Inspector Bhatnagar who was specifically directed to seize the T.V. set from the petitioner did not actually seize the set. On the facts of the case it is fair to conclude that Mr Bhatnagar seized the set but did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
