TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India, Ministry of Commerce, Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madurai, in their letter dated 28-1-1992 granted the Importer Exporter Code Number. Similarly, the Reserve Bank of India, Exchange Control Department, Madras also allotted Code Number to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner's firm is a Member of the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council. During the course of the business, the petitioner purchased 1000 Kg. of cloves on 25-1-1992 from one Glen Valley Estate, Alencholai, Kanyakumari District. According to the petitioner, the Estate sold 1000 Kg. of cloves by their Sale Bill No. 308, dated 25-1-1992 and this was carried to the godown by lorry TNU 9949 and the trip sheet of the Goods vehicle was checked during transit by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, on 25-1-1992. This purchase was entered in the Day Book of the firm on 25-1-1992. Again the firm purchased 1000 Kg. of cloves from Silver Rock Estate under Bill No. 59, dated 6-2-1992. On 7-2-1992, the firm purchased another 1000 Kgs. of cloves and 4015 Kgs. of clove leaf from Silver Rock Estate by Bill No. 61. These three purchases are the subject matter of the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms and the seized items are perishable in nature. However, the Department filed Crl. O.P. No. 3807 of 1992 against the order passed by the lower authority, in this Court. This Court held that the goods seized by customs officials which are permitted under the Customs Act, cannot be ordered to be released and the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to order release of the goods. The petitioner thereupon filed writ petition, W.P. No. 8437 of 1992 for a mandamus to release the seized items. This court directed the first respondent to adjudicate the matter since it was alleged that the show cause notice was issued by the respondents on 31-7-1982. This Court in W.M.P. No. 18578 of 1992 and 20514 of 1992, filed for a direction for release of the goods and extension of time to adjudicate the matter, permitted the petitioner to file his objections within two weeks and directed the first respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings within four weeks from 22-9-1992 positively. This Court also gave permission to both parties to move this Court for further directions after the order is passed by the Deputy Collector as indicated above. The petitioner has also filed a detailed reply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or penalty is not at all, imposable. It is also contended that the principles of natural justice has been violated, when enquiry and verification were conducted by the Department behind the back of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to him to rebut it. It is also contended that the whole proceedings has to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice. In my opinion, the matter has to go back for completing the adjudication on the points raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the seizure was made on 11-2-1992 and the notice was served on 17-8-1992 and therefore, as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the period of limitation of six months from the date of seizure, expires on 10-8-1992. But in this case notice was served on 17-8-1992. Therefore, it is contented that the notice is barred by limitation. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda Others (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 330) which is to the effect that giving of the notice is not complete unless and until it reaches the person concerned or its actual tender to him. Learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m an opportunity to rebut, it is certainly a violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, such order cannot be allowed to stand. A decision of this Court reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 184, was also referred to in the above case. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that voluminous documents produced during the adjudication proceedings were not verified due to time limit. Deputy Collector of Customs, Tuticorin, in his order dated 21-10-1992 has observed as follows :- "Only at the time of personal hearing i.e. on 19-10-1992 documents were produced. On that day voluminous documents and registers had been produced stating that the cloves were legally acquired under proper documents and that proper accounts had been maintained. Since the case has to be adjudicated before 21-10-1992 as per the Honourable High Court's directions all the documents could not be verified because of the time limit." 4.The reasoning given by the Deputy Collector of Customs, is far from satisfactory. While adjudicating the matter, the Deputy Collector of Customs is duty bound to consider all the documents placed before him and he cannot look into some documents and refus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
