TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out by the appellants, a certain quantity of raw silk yarn was imported by the appellants which reached Calcutta Port at Falta on 24th June, 2000, and 10th August, 2000 and possession of the said goods were taken at Calcutta on 5th July, 2000 and 20th August, 2000, respectively. According to the appellants the entire raw materials covered by the said two consignments were sent by them to the respondent No. 6, Eastern Enterprises, Ltd., who were engaged in the business of weaving imported raw silk yarn into fabric, on 11th October, 2000 and 1st November, 2000. According to the appellants the said respondent forwarded the said goods to their Varanasi office for manufacturing fabric in Varanasi. 3.On 9th November, 2000, the said goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zure, in order to give the appellants a reasonable opportunity of explaining as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated. Since according to the appellants such notice to show cause was issued on 30th July, 2001, the same was beyond the statutory period of six months and the detention not having been extended on sufficient grounds beyond such period, the authorities were under an obligation under sub-section (2) of Section 124 of the said Act to return the seized goods to the appellants. 5.On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the goods in question had merely been detained on 9th November, 2000, in keeping with the proviso to Section 110(1) of the said Act and that the goods were actually seized on 1st March, 2001, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt out of the hands of the appellants as soon as on 22nd November, 2000, the rooms in which the detained and/or seized goods were kept were sealed by the Customs Officers (P), Varanasi Division. Mr. Panja submitted that the fact relating to the sealing of the rooms by the said Customs authorities would be evident from the Supurdnama executed by the person in whose custody, the said goods were kept and which has been made Annexure 'X' collectively to the affidavit-in-reply affirmed on behalf of the appellants. 8.In support of his submission Mr. Panja firstly referred to a Bench decision of this court in Collector of Customs and Central Excise, West Bengal Ors. v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. Anr., 1979 (4) E.L.T. Page J 313, where the same qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt observed that if such show cause notice was not issued within six months, the only consequence would be that the person from whom the goods were seized would be entitled to their return. 11.Certain other decisions were also referred to by Mr. Panja wherein the same principle was explained. 12. Mr. Panja submitted that the learned Single Judge had wrongly relied on the Single Bench decision of this court in Surendra Kumar Banthia v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 217 (Cal.), where one of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that since no adjudication proceedings had been initiated within a period of six months from the date on which the goods had arrived the goods must be taken to have been seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of. 16.Mr. Sarkar submitted that the dominion over the detained goods never went out of the hands of the appellants as the same were kept with one Shri Hari Prasad Agarwal, who was a Director of M/s. Eastern Enterprises Ltd., a sister concern of the appellant-company. Mr. Sarkar submitted that the rooms in which the goods were detained belonged to M/s. Eastern Enterprises Ltd., and the locks for locking the said rooms were provided by the said company and the keys thereof remained with the company. Mr. Sarkar contended that the seals over the locks had been placed by the Customs authorities at the request of the company. 17.Mr. Sarkar urged that M/s. Eastern Enterprises Ltd. retained dominion over the detained goods which remained in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case are squarely covered by the facts of the Hindustan Motors case (supra). Once the dominion over the goods passed out of the hands of the appellant-company it tantamounted to seizure for all practical purposes. It is one thing for the goods to be kept detained in a manner where the owner thereof has access to the same but is prevented by a prohibitory order from dealing with the same. The situation is radically altered when the owner of the goods no longer has access thereto and has no control over the same. 21.In Banthia's case (supra), the learned Single Judge was considering a case where the customs authorities had refused to release certain goods, which had been imported, without a Bond backed by a Bank guarantee to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
