TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... either side. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that they are engaged in the import and trading of Digital Audio and music production equipments. They imported the musical equipments through the Chennai Airport and had cleared it for home consumption after paying the necessary duty. They sent a part of the legally imported duty paid goods having a market value of Rs. 2,26,000/-, to the dealer Sudeep Audio at Mumbai to be exhibited in the exhibition "Palm India. Expo 2006" organised by M/s. Infocast Systems Pvt. Ltd. The goods were sent with a delivery challan dated 19-5-2006. The first respondent on 22-5-2006, came to the CST Mumbai Railway station and detained the petitioner's goods. The representative of the petitioner and its as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that an interception was made on 22-5-2006 in respect of the consignment in question; that the representative of the petitioner has admitted that it belonged to the petitioner; that he produced certain documents in order to show the ownership; but, they were not in complete form, and thus, he was further directed to produce the documents in complete form in order to satisfy the ownership, but not done; that under the circumstances, a communication was addressed; that a reply was given on 8-6-2006; but, it did not contain the proper explanation or the reply or the documents; that following the same, the goods were seized after following the procedural formalities on 2-8-2006; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents' counsel that the detention of the goods by the department is not the seizure as contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act; that in a given case, when the goods were detained, it was only a restraint made, and calling for the production of the documents; that if produced properly and the department is satisfied, the goods would be immediately released; but, if not so, seizure under Section 110(2) of the Act would follow; that in the instant case, originally it was detained on 22-5-2006; that sufficient opportunity was given; that the documentary evidence was not produced; that under the circumstances, there arose an action for seizure as envisaged under Section 110(2) of the Act, following which the show cause notice has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minion over the property is lost by the party, and it came to the hands of the department, it has got to be taken as seizure as found under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, and the Department cannot come forward to say that the custody of the goods was taken on one day, and they were kept under detention, and subsequently, on the other day to its convenience, seizure was effected; and that both cannot be different. Relying on the said decision, the learned Counsel would further submit that it is only a formal seizure which is done; that the date of detention is the date of seizure, and thus, the show cause notice is out of time, since the said provision is mandatory, and hence, it has got to be struck down and the goods be returned. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a necessity arose for the department to issue a show cause notice initiating proceedings, which is after making a seizure as one contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act. The "seizure" what is provided under Section 110(2) of the Act, cannot connote the simple and mere detention of the goods. The detention of goods is actually taking the custody of the goods and keeping it under restraint from being taken by the parties; but, the party is entitled to produce sufficient documentary evidence, and if he shows proof, he can take it. At that juncture, no question of seizure would arise. Once the property is detained by the department, unless and until the adjudication proceedings are over, and an order is passed for the return of the propert....