2015 (4) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 6,16,500 /- and 68,000 kgs of cloves of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 34,00,000 /- was confiscated by the Customs Department, from certain importers. Since the Customs Department did not possess any warehousing facility, on the same day i.e. on 24.09.1993, the appellant herein was contacted to keep the above goods in safe custody. On 24.09.1993 itself, he executed a superdnama acknowledging that he was having intimate relations with the importers, and accordingly, based on a mutual consent of the Customs Department as also the importers, he accepted to keep the aforementioned seized articles in his godown and in his physical custody. In executing the above superdnama , the appellant herein undertook as under : "I hereby undertake to p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rate, Imphal , Manipur . The facutal position indicated hereinabove, is apparent from the narration recorded in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Criminal Misc.Case . Paragraphs 8 and 9 are accordingly extracted hereunder: "8. That though the aforesaid demand notice dated 5.9.1995 for payment of the seizure value of seized goods served on Sh.Gurnam Singh though was duly received by him. He failed to deposit the requisite amount. Thereafter, in exercise, of the powers conferred by clause (2) of section 142(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Deputy Commissioner, Customs( Prev ), North Eastern Region, Shilling issued a detention order dated for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 32,94,000 by detaining and selling of goods. Now, it has been nearly t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s approached this Court, through the instant appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, and having examined the documents available on the record of this case, we are satisfied, that the proceedings initiated against the appellant were on account of the factual position depicted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Crl.Complaint Case No.142 of 2005 (the aforesaid paragraphs have been extracted hereinabove). The grievance expressed therein is that, the appellant had failed to deposit the recovery amount depicted in the Demand Notice dated 05.09.1995. The fact that it was open to the authorities to recover from the appellant the payment in lieu of goods deposited with him for safe custody is apparent from the undertaking given by ....