TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y No.34899207 dated 04.01.2017 (Glass Beads and Stationary items), (iv) Bill of Lading No.GOSUNGB 1023220 dated 28.09.2017 (House Hold articles) and (v) Delhi based consignment containing (New Year Diaries and Gift items) which according to the appellants were illegally confiscated by the respondents on 26.10.2017 from the petitioner's warehouse. 3.The Writ Petition was filed on the following averments: (a) The Appellant is the Manager of M/s.Track Road Transporters Private Limited, Chennai, having its office at godown No.G-18/12A, Sathangadu Village (Basin Road), Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. M/s.Track Road Transporters Private Limited deals with logistics business, rendering the services of loading and unloading Cargo / goods from carriers and kept in their warehouse and then transport them in carriers to various destinations as per the instructions of the customers. (b) On 24.10.2017, one Mr.Magesh, who is also known as Mr.Ashok requested the service of the appellant to transport the Cargo / goods from his 40 feet container owned by him parked at Madhavaram Parking yard to be sent to Manali. It is stated that labourers were sent to unload the goods from the 40 feet co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant. It was stated that the investigation was at a crucial stage therefore, the writ petition could not entertained. 5.The learned Single Judge by the impugned order accepted the statements of the respondent / Department that the appellant is involved in the removal of goods based on forged documents and he is using his godown for keeping smuggled goods. The learned Single Judge therefore rejected the prayer for desealing the godown or the return of the consignments. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents / Department to issue fresh summons to the appellant / petitioner and directing the appellant / petitioner to cooperate with the Investigation. This order is sought to be challenged in the instant Writ Appeal. 6.Heard Mr.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7.Mr.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contented that Section 110 of the Customs Act does not give any power to the Customs authorities to seal a godown. He further submitted that the goods, which had been taken away by the authorities did not pertain to the goods cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: PROVIDED that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral. 10.The first question that arises for consideration is whether Section 110 would within these scope to include the power to seal a godown from where goods are seized. Section 110 of the Customs Act provides that if there is a reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, proper Officer may seize such goods. The case of the respondents / department is that when they inspected the premises, there were goods lying in the godown without any documents to establish the authenticity of the goods and that the goods appeared to had been removed by using forged documents. 2522 cartons / packages were recovered from the godown. It is contended that the godown was being regularly used for keeping goods, which are illegally removed from CFS by using forged documents. In the counter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishable with imprisionment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine . In the current Bill of Entry No.3325365 dt. 21.09.2017, the evasion of duty/ anti-dumping duty of around Rs. 2.5 Crores is involved. Shri Ravindra Kumar is one of the key operators of the syndicate and has organiszed smuggling of goods and evasion of Customs duty by illegally removing the goods from CFS's based on forged documents in guise of dummy or non-existent persons / IEC etc. 11.It is submitted by the respondents that it is necessary to ensure that the godown is not used for storing goods, which have been removed by using forged documents. The learned counsel for the respondents / department has relied on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vilayat Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 19 (M.P.) to substantiate his contentions regarding the power to seal the godown. A perusal of Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962, shows that there is no prohibition for sealing any godown, in which goods which have been illegally removed from CFS, using forged documents. Customs Authorities can seal the godown, alongwith the goods inside or seize of the goods and seal the godo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority, under Proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act. 16.After the hearing in the instant writ appeal was concluded, learned counsel for the appellant has filed an additional memo contending that (i) Mr.Ashok had handed over the goods under Bill of Entry No.3325365 only after obtaining proper clearance from the Customs Authority and the goods, which were handed over by Mr.Ashok had been taken away by him on 24.10.2017. (ii) It was contended that since the goods that have been taken away did not pertain to Bill of Entry No.3325365 and that pertain to other valid Bill of Entry. The Customs Authority could not have seized these goods. (iii) It is stated in the memo that the entire show cause notices dated 18.04.2018 and 24.04.2018 pertain only to Bill of Entry No.3325365 dated 21.09.2017. (iv) The appellant did not receive any summons or show cause notice pertain to consignments, which had been seized by the Customs Authority. (v) The appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s.A.S.Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner of Customs delivered on 02.06.2016 in W.P.No.34581 of 2015. 17.The process has been initiated, on the basis of intel....