2018 (9) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the event, the authorities had found anything wrong in the procedure adopted by the petitioner while importing goods, the authorities could have taken measures permitted to be taken under the Customs Act, 1962. He refers to a writing dated October 13, 2017 issued by the Customs authorities wherein the Customs authorities had directed examination of the goods, in the presence of the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). Such writing goes on to say that, the clearance of the goods would be withheld, subject to further orders from DRI. He submits that, such order tantamounts to the respondents taking dominion over the goods. The petitioner lost custody of the goods by reason of such action of the respondents. Consequently, such a direction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....26) of the Act of 1962. He refers to the Kerala High Court judgment dated July 21, 2011 (The Proprietor-Vs-The Commissioner of Customs) and submits that, the aspect of a "name lender" importing the goods has been taken into consideration and it has been held that, such name lender can be allowed to import goods. Learned Advocate appearing for the DRI submits that, the date of actual seizure of the goods should be considered as January 12, 2018. The seizure proceeding was drawn up on such date and a panchnama was prepared. He refers to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and submits that, the basis for invoking the jurisdiction under such section is the formation of an opinion. The authorities must have reasons to believe to invoke Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s raises justifiable doubts. Moreover, the gentleman, who claims to be the authorized signatory of the partnership firm, is acting as the authorized signatory in respect of various other legal entities in respect of which, DRI has undertaken investigation. The apprehension is that, undisclosed persons behind the transactions are operating through the mechanism of a disclosed identity, and are guilty of defrauding the revenue. In any event, the petitioner is guilty of mis-description, under valuation and defrauding the revenue. He refers to various documents in support of such contentions. Learned Advocate appearing for the Customs adopts the contentions of the DRI. In addition, he submits that, the Customs authorities had requested the pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act, which requires further consideration. It would be inappropriate to take a decision on the date of seizure without allowing the respondents an opportunity to file affidavits. ESI Limited (supra) concerns the questions of release of the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. It finds that, the goods in question were sealed by the Customs on a particular date. The date on which the Customs authorities had sealed the goods was taken to be the date on which the period of six months would commence, in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the customs had exercised dominion over the goods on the date of the sealing. In the present case, the Customs authorities had asked for examination of the goods on October 13, 20....