TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of M/s. The King Electronics at 8, Madan Street, Calcutta and (2) the residential premises of its partner, Shri Narendra Chandra Raisurana at 128A, Dharamatala Street, Calcutta and (3) a secret godown in a dilapidated out-house behind the residential premises of Shri Narendra Chandra Raisurana, on the strength of the search orders issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Tech.), West Bengal, Calcutta. The search resulted in seizure of (i) 1550 pcs. of Transistors and Misc. Radio Parts (total value Rs. 5,182.00); (ii) 1000 pcs. of Transistors, 17 pcs. of fountain pen and misc. goods (total value Rs. 10,403.00); (111) 1387 pcs. of Transistors, 1 piece Transistor Radio and Misc. Radio Parts (total value Rs. 5,530.00). in the above shop and residential premises. The appellant as well as other partners of the Firm, M/s. King Electronics, Calcutta were interrogated. On interrogation, the appellant had stated that some of the goods were purchased by him from some unknown 'dalals' of Calcutta against money. He could not furnish the names of the 'dalals' from whom he purchased the goods in question, to the investigating officers. As the appellant had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act, 1962 by his order dated 30-6-1969. The appellant has submitted that as the first order extending the time to issue a show cause notice was void and illegal, the subsequent order for extension of time will also be bad in law. The appellant has further submitted that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 stipulates that the proper officer can seize the goods only if he has reason to believe that those are liable for confiscation under the Act. He has further contended that such a belief should be based on 'reasonable belief and the said reasonable belief has not been brought out in the show cause notice. The appellant has further contended that there is no allegations in the show cause notice under the Import Trade Control Order as well as under Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and without giving him any opportunity to meet these allegations, the Collector has held that the appellant has contravened these provisions. Therefore, the order of the Collector of Customs is liable to be set aside on the ground urged by him. 4. Shri A. K. Bandyopadhyay, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued the case and submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the seizure had been done only after getting information and after the proper officer being satisfied and acting on bona fide reasonable belief. In this connection, he relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court as reported in 1988 (4) SCC-1. He further submitted that the goods were all of foreign origin and that the Transistors at the relevant time were all notified goods. The appellant had not discharged the onus of importing the goods on a valid import licence. He, further, submitted that the appellant was not an 'actual user' and also not a licensed importer. The goods seized were all consumer goods and were banned items. But, however, they could be allowed only under Baggage Rules. But the appellant had admitted that he had purchased the goods in question from dalals. He had further submitted that some of the goods were industrial items which could be imported by 'actual users' and not by the appellant who is a stockist. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector was proper and correct in law. 6. I have heard both the sides and considered the submissions and perused the records. The question arises for consideration is (i) as to whether the proceedings are vitiated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s then it would be open for Collector to order immediately extending the period for issue of show cause notice and later to hold proceedings to determine whether the order of extension should be cancelled or not. In case the procedure has not been followed, then the show cause notice issued after the period of six months of seizure is void and the proceedings are liable to be set aside. In this case, the Collector in his order dated 5-2-1969 has not brought out any circumstance which would extenuate the passing of the order without giving notice of hearing to the party. It is not the case of the Department that the appellant was likely to evade the service of notice and that there were such factors as would cause for immediate passing of the order without following the procedure. Therefore, I have to hold that the order dated 5-2-1969 passed by the Collector extending the period by four months for issue of show cause notice is not as per law in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court noted supra. The learned S.D.R. had submitted that after the expiry of the first order the Collector had issued the show cause notice and the party had given in writing his no-objection for granti....