TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annel at the arrival hall of Airport. According to the respondents, he was intercepted after he walked out of the green channel. Factual disputes as to the exact point of time at which the petitioner was intercepted cannot unfortunately be decided upon affidavits in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Admittedly, on search of the petitioner's baggage, 50 pieces of writ-watches, 19 pieces of track pants and 1 (one) piece of unbranded LED Video Processor were recovered by the Customs Authorities. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. A seizure-list was duly issued. The petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act. According to the petitioner, the goods seized from the petitioner were valued at Rs. 55,82,600/-. 5. On October 24, 2011 the petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. By an order dated October 24, 2011, on terms and conditions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted interim bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner prayed for revaluation of the seized goods and also for provisional release of the writ-watches....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the letter would be typed out on the same day. It would not be proper to impute personal knowledge. However, this Court cannot but take judicial notice of the fact that in the afternoon when there is less traffic, the distance from Strand Road to the Air Port could be covered in about 40/45 minutes or sometimes even less when a vehicle is driven recklessly as the Government vehicles are often driven. From the fact that the hearing was fixed at 3:30 p.m., it cannot conclusively concluded that the letter dated 19th April, 2012 of the Assistant Commissioner was backdated. It is possible that this was done in a hurry having regard to the fact that the period of six months would have expired on 21st April, 2012. 11. The question is whether the order of extension suffers from such legal infirmity as to warrant the interference of this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the order of the Commissioner might have been better worded. However, on an overall consideration of the order it is clear that no one had appeared for the petitioner. Considering the investigation details and the need for further investigation, the period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of six months is made out. What is envisaged is an objective consideration of the case and a decision to be rendered after considering the material placed before him to justify the request for extension. The Customs Officer concerned who seeks the extension must show good reason for seeking the extension, and in this behalf he would probably want to establish that the investigation is not complete and it cannot yet be said whether a final order confiscating the goods should be made or not. As more time is required for investigation, he applies for extension of time. The Collector must be satisfied that the investigation is being pursued seriously and that there is need for more time for taking it to its conclusion. The question is whether the person claiming restoration of goods is entitled to notice before time is extended. The right to notice flows not from the mere circumstance that there is a proceeding of a judicial nature, but indeed it goes beyond to the basic reason which gives to the proceedings its character, and that reason is that a right of a person may be effected and there may be prejudice to that right if he is not accorded an opportunity to put forward his case in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to afford an opportunity to the person effected with the larger considerations of public interest." 15. In this case a notice was issued and the petitioner was called for a hearing on 19th April, 2012. The petitioner chose not to appear. Had he appeared, he might have been put to notice. He could have been put to notice of the intention to extend the original period of six months. 16. A speaking order of a Commissioner is not to be equated to a judgment of a legally trained judge in exercise of power of judicial review. The Court is only to see whether the basic ingredients have been taken into account. On a reading of the impugned order of extension as a whole it appears that the Commissioner has looked into all aspects of the matter. 17. Mr. Arijit Chakraborty referred to the provisions of the Passport Act and strenuously contended that the passport had wrongfully been retained by the Customs authorities and the same should be returned to the petitioner. It however appears that investigation is still in progress. This Court is thus not inclined to direct return of the passport at this stage. It will also be open to the Customs authorities to draw the att....