TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reign buyer, for supply of synthetic fabrics. The said foreign buyer, it is claimed, opened an irrevocable letter of credit dated 18th July, 2010. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner exported 12,000 metric tonnes of synthetic fabrics to the foreign buyer. 4. By a letter dated 20th July, 2010, the petitioner offered to sell to the foreign buyer, its stock of 1,11,080 metres of different varieties of synthetic fabrics in a lot of 7126 Kgs. at the attractive rate of 3 US $ for per kilogram, 1007 pieces of synthetic sarees at the rate of 9 US $ per piece, and 9 Ornis at 1 US $ per piece. 5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner offered the foreign buyer a low price, for stocks which had been lying with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The legality of the letters written to the Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Petrapole has been challenged. 12. Section 110(1) and 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 are set out hereinbelow for convenience: "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. - (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. 110-A. Provisional release of goods, document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees in question. 18. Mr. Banerjee pointed out that the concerned respondents neither released the consignments nor initiated any proceedings against the petitioner. No formal order of detention was issued under Section 110. In the circumstances, the petitioner by its letter dated 18th Otober, 2010 demanded justice but to no effect. 19. In the meanwhile, on 8th October, 2010, the foreign buyer cancelled the purchase order as well as the letter of credit. The petitioner will thus have to take back the consignments and try and sell the same in the local market or alternatively find another foreign buyer. 20. Mr. Bharadwaj appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on the basis of information that certain exporters ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling credit under the Duty Exempted Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme. 26. It was only by way of an afterthought that the petitioner claimed that the goods were intended for export under Non-incentive Scheme. However, whether the goods were intended to be exported under Non-incentive Scheme or not could not be established in the absence of the bill of export. 27. Mr. Bharadwaj pointed out from the affidavit-in-opposition that during the financial year 2010-11, the petitioner had exported 70 consignments of which 65 consignments were exported under the DEPB Scheme. Had the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence not intercepted the consignments, the same may have been exported under the DEPB Scheme. 28. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;The judgment in Om Udyog (supra) was, however, rendered in the particular facts of the aforesaid case where the respondent authorities had not been able to show any justification for detention of goods for such a long time. The Division Bench held in Paragraph 12 "In the present case, no justification has been shown for continued detention of goods". 34. A judgment is not to be interpreted rigidly, like a statute. A judgment is to be understood in the background of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. The sentence in the judgment "In no case non-clearance of goods for months could be justified" is to be interpreted with reference to the context in which the sentence has been used. 35. In this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The notice is apparently without authority. There was no scope for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue any notice to the petitioner under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 41. Moreover, the authorities have proceeded on the basis that the goods have been detained in exercise of power under Section 110 and accordingly purported to issue the aforesaid notice under Section 110 sub-section (2). 42. It, however, appears that there is actually no order of seizure or detention under Section 110 on the owner of the consignments. The limitation of six months to issue notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 starts from the date of seizure under Section 110. 43. There being no limitation under Section 110 a notice under ....