TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shnanagar, Nadia wherein the learned Court was pleased to pass the order stating inter alia, ".........that the seized articles in connection with the case be returned to the accused on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 Crore and on further conditions that the accused will be liable to produce such articles before the Court as and when called for by the Court. It is also clarified that the accused will not dispose the article till the final disposal of the case". 3. Mr. K.K. Maiti, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above case has arisen out of the following facts :- (a) That acting on the basis of a specific information recorded vide DRI No.01/16 dated 22.09.2016 the Customs Officers of Gede Land Customs Unit, Gede Nadia on 22.09.2016 at 12.00 Hours at the time of baggage clearance searched the opposite party who was returning from Bangladesh through Gede Land Customs Station in presence of two independent witnesses and recovered two yellow coloured metallic bars believed to be gold of Foreign origin weighing 2.648 kgs., valued at Rs. 81,84,000/- only from his possession. The goods were concealed in between the feet and sole of his shoes (one piece under each....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party and to record his statement at Krishnanagar District Correctional Home and the Learned Court was pleased to grant permission to that effect. (h) That pursuant to the permission granted by the Learned Court the Department has obtained the voluntary statements of the opposite party on 18.10.2016 in presence of the Controller of Krishnanagar District Correctional Home. (i) The opposite party has been enlarged on bail on 25.10.2016. (j) Thereafter the said seized yellow metallic bars were sent for testing to the Joint Director, Chemical Laboratory, Customs House vide letter dated 19.10.2016. Thereafter chemical test has been conducted by the Joint Director and as per the test report vide lab No.2080-2083/SZD(G)-382-385 dated 27.10.2016 the seized yellow metal is found to be gold and purity of the gold is 99.5%. (k) On 13.12.2016 a notice under section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 was served upon the opposite party and in reply to the same dated 22.12.2016 the opposite party however claimed to be the owner of the seized gold and stated that he wants to receive it back by depositing nominal customs duty in terms of section 125 of the Customs Act. (l) Since the inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction with the case be returned to be accused on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 crore and on further conditions that the accused will be liable to produce such articles before the Court as and when called for by the Court. It is also clarified that the accused will not dispose the article till the final disposal of the case". 4. It is submitted that the Learned Court without observing and appreciating the provisions of the Customs Act has wrongly directed to return the goods furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 crore. 5. That the said goods were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The direction for return of seized goods without considering the provision, as passed by the Learned Court is absolutely bad and perverse as well as contrary to the Customs Act. 6. Section 110(2) provides that where any goods are seized under sub Section 1 and no notice is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession the goods have been seized. But in the present case the notice has been issued for extension of time to issue the show cause in terms of section 124 of the Customs Act and ultimately, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Court by exceeding the jurisdiction has passed the order which is contrary to the Customs Act, 1962 and is thus liable to be set aside. 14. Mr. Souvik Mitter, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the order under revision is in accordance with law and the petitioner is bound under the law to comply with same, and as such the revision is liable to be dismissed. 15. The relevant portion of the order under revision passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is as follows:- Complaint Case No. 1108/2016 Order Dated 05.04.2018 "...........The second question of return of the seized articles due to non-compliance of Sec. 110(2) of the Customs Act on account of failure of proper confiscation is to be considered by the Court. It is to be mentioned that the process of confiscation or non-confiscation is the prerogative or duty of the customs authorities and this Court has got no function in either the confiscation or non-confiscation of the seized articles. The question of issuance of notice by the customs authorities and extension of period by Commissioner of Customs is not the jurisdiction of the Court, but when the process of inventory is already compl....