TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not fit to be admitted, because the petitioner had not exhausted his remedy under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, of going in revision before the Central Government against the appellate order of the Board. However, their Lordships admitted the application on the ground that, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was one clear point of law involved in the case which was covered by the authority of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service Customs, Calcutta v. Charan Das Malhotra 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477, in relation to violation of the provisions of Section 110 (2) of the Act. Therefore an undertaking was given on behalf of the petitioner that the only point which would be pressed at the time of hearing of the writ application would be in relation to the violation of Section 110(2) of the Act and the consequential point of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the petitioner obtained only a limited rule. 3.The facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner is the owner of Mica Mines of Jhumri Tilaiya and owns a mica factory at Giridih. On the 12th of July, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not stated in the writ application as to when these 25 cases of mica reached Jogbani. All that is said is "that the said 25 cases of mica reached Jogbani earlier". According to the petitioner, it was not found suitable to keep the cases in the godown of the Transport Company on payment of rental as it was exorbitant. It was decided in the circumstances by the said Shri Uttamlal Gupta to shift the 25 cases to the house of a commission agent, namely, Suryakant Mishra, at a lesser amount of rental. According to the petitioner, on the 27th of October, 1969, the Customs Officer purporting to exercise his powers under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of his powers under misconception raided the premises of Shri Suryakant Mishra and seized the 25 cases containing mica. It is said that these 25 cases of mica were illegally and improperly seized. It is also said that the above-mentioned cases of mica were not meant for smuggling; they were not seized in the process of being surreptitiously exported to Nepal nor was there an iota of material of actual attempt to export the mica in question to Nepal. These 25 cases were stored in the house of Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was heard by Shri S. Venkatesan, Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, who, by his order, dated the 14th of March, 1974 (Annexure ₹ 8') rejected the appeal. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this application in this court on the 30th of April, 1974. I have only referred to such of the facts mentioned in the writ application which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Other facts which have no relevancy to the question in issue have not been mentioned which stating petitioner's case. 4.Respondents have appeared and have shown cause by filing an affidavit. Their case, in short, is that mica was seized on the 27th October, 1969. The period of six months as provided in Section 110(2) of the Act was to expire on the 26th of April, 1970. Investigation was not likely to be completed within that period. In the circumstance, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Patna, on the recommendation of the Assistant Collector, Customs, extended the period by another six months by his order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. This rule is subject to a proviso according to which the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. Learned Counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector, Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (S.C.)] wherein similar question arose for consideration. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that the power under the proviso to Section 110(2) is quasi judicial in nature. Their Lordships have said that the power of extending the period to give notice under Section 124(a) of the Act could be exercised only on sufficient cause being shown. Their Lordships have further said that the expression "sufficient cause being shown" must mean that the Collector must determine on materials placed before him that they warrant extension of time. Since, the power provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) is not an administrative power it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court and the seized watches were directed to be returned. The order passed by the Calcutta High Court was affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for respondents however submitted that the seized 25 cases of mica had already been confiscated and an appeal against the order of confiscation was also dismissed. According to him the fact that the cases of mica were not returned on the expiry of six months beginning from the 27th October, 1969, will not make the subsequent order of confiscation illegal and without jurisdiction. I think, there is force in this argument. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court (supra), while explaining Section 124 in paragraph 5 said "that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. The section does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given. The period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice". It is thus obvious that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
