2019 (8) TMI 789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst bill of entry No. 4355561 dated 11.12.2017 which was detained illegally and seized on 30.01.2018 in the absence of any Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 as per the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; and/or b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to provisionally release the goods imported against Bill of Entry No. 4355561 dated 11.12.2017 in compliance of the order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Customs Appeals No. 51405 I 2018- DB" 2. As far as prayer (b) is concerned, on the very first date when this writ petition was listed i.e. 1st August, 2018, the following ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w be released to the Petitioner. In support of the above contention she placed reliance on an order dated 21st February, 2019 passed by the CESTAT in Appeal No. C/53512-52513/2018-Cus.(DB) (M/s. Swees James and Jewellery v. C.C. Jaipur-I) and an order dated 3rd June, 2019 of the CESTAT, Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in Customs Appeal No. 10497/2019 (M/s. Gastrade International v. C.C. -Kandla). 5. In reply, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent, drew attention of the court to the second proviso of Section 110(2) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 29th March, 2018. 6. At the outset it requires to be noticed that there are two significant amendments that have been made to Section 110 of the Act with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion in the present case is that the provisional release order was passed by the Respondent on 27th April, 2018 subject to certain terms which were then modified by the CESTAT on an appeal by the Petitioner by its order dated 2nd July, 2018. 8. The contention of Mr. Singh is that since the provisional release order has been passed before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, the second proviso would apply and if it does, then the need for issuing an SCN within a period of six months from the date of seizure will not apply. He accordingly contends that in terms of the second proviso, the Petitioner cannot insist on unconditional release of the goods. 9. In response to the above contention, Ms. Manish learned counsel for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 (2) of the Act and not the second proviso. In both those cases, the question was whether the requirement of the Commissioner having to record reasons in writing for extending the initial period of six months for issuance of an SCN includes hearing the person affected. No such question arises in the present case. The Department is relying entirely on the second proviso to contend that the specified period of six months did not apply at all in the present case. It must be noted at this stage that an SCN was subsequently issued to the Petitioner on 11th April, 2019 and those adjudication proceedings pursuant thereto are in progress. 12. It appears to the Court that the legislative intent was to ensure that the person whose goods are seize....