TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011. 2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner had imported automobile parts under a bill of entry i.e. 5582659 on 27.12.2011. The goods were seized by the customs authorities on 11.1.2012. During the pendency of further proceedings the writ petitioner requested for provisional release of goods on 7.3.2012 (by virtue of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962). The provisional release was granted but subject to certain conditions - (which were not acceptable to the petitioner) by an order dated 23.3.2012. The petitioner therefore approached this Court under Article 226, by filing W.P.(C) No. 2522/2012. A learned Single Judge of this Court on 06.07.2012 disposed of the writ proceedings noticing that an alternative remedy against the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tigation Branch of ICD, Tughlakabad is making out a case of undervaluation, but details have not been disclosed in the provisional release order. However, the fact remains that valuation aspects are under investigation and hence the goods have been provisionally released under Section 110 A of Customs Act, 1962. 4. As per Section 110(2) - "Where any goods are seized under Sub Section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given .....under clause (a) of section 124, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Provided that after said period of six months may on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding Six ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2012. 4. The respondents in their reply as also through their counsel urged that the petitioner opted for the relief of a provisional release of goods under Section 110A and even approached this court. Subsequently, he approached the Commissioner (Appeals). In the meanwhile, after the orders of the Commissioner, a show cause notice was issued on 09.08.2012. In these circumstances, this Court should not take cognizance of the time spent by the petitioner in agitating the issue of unconditional release before this Court as well as before the Commissioner. So viewed, the proviso to Section 110(2) would not operate; consequently the show cause notice would then be deemed to be within the time specified as to enable the custom authorities to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., any proceeding under the Act. (4) The person from whose Custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs." "110A. Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication.- Any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority may require, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require." ........ .......... ......... 124. Issue of show cause notice befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d J.K. Bardolia Mills v. Dy. Collector and Ors. 1994 (5) SCC 332. In the last mentioned decision the Court stated that the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 110(2) would be that seized goods would be returned to the persons from whose possession the goods were taken. This Court also considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah v. Union of India 2009 (1) Bom. CR 474 wherein the Court proceeded to observe: "Section 110 speaks of no notice being given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure or confiscation of the goods. The procedure for confiscation of the goods can be resorted to if the goods are not provisionally released. If the owner in terms of ....