TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (8) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by him on different occasions from different persons but that he did not know the particulars of the persons in question. He also did not possess any bill or receipt for the purchase of these bottles. He admitted that the two trans-receivers, two transistors and one tape-recorder were purchased by him from some persons whom he did not remember. Regarding binoculars, he stated that he had bought them from Europe somewhere in the years 1959 and 1964 and that these were cleared under the Baggage Rules. However, he could not produce any customs receipt for the same. 3. Shri Karthikeyan was called upon to show cause why the goods seized from his residential premises be not confiscated under section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 for offences committed under section 11 ibid read with section 3(2) of the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 and why a penalty should not be imposed on him under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. He was also informed that the goods were notified under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the burden of proof that these were not smuggled was on him. 4. The Additional Collector of Customs, Cochin adjudicated the case and held that the goods in q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 2(8) of-the Customs Act, 1962. Even if a show cause notice was issued by the Collector of Customs, there was nothing wrong if the case was adjudicated by the Addl. Collector. The Board further observed that the value of the goods being Rs. 12,500/- the case came within the competence of the Addl. Collector only. 11. The Board, however, agreed with the argument of the petitioner that section 123 was wrongly invoked by the Addl. Collector as the goods were not notified under that section at the time of seizure. The Board however, found that there was sufficient evidence on record which established the fact that the petitioner was engaged in the smuggling of these goods and had acquired them illicitly. The Board noted that 89 bottles of whisky which was recovered from his residential premises could not have been for the personal use of Shri Karthikeyan and his customers. The Board has come to the conclusion that the offence of illicit acquisition of the goods has been established beyond doubt even if the provisions of section 123 ibid. were not invoked. The Board further observed that a deterrent penalty was called for in such a case and accordingly did not give any relief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f show cause notice. Even the communication extending the period for issue of show cause notice was received nearly four months after the expiry of the initial 6 months. The counsel relied on the following High Court decisions to plead that in these circumstances, the Government was bound to reimburse the party the value of the goods if they have been disposed of or the confiscation should be set aside being not valid in law : (i) Calcutta High Court. Civil Rule No. 860W of 1973 decided on 3-8-1977 (reported in CENCUS November, 1978 p. 235D in the case of Uma Rajeshwararao Patra v. Union of India & Others. (ii) Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur v. Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf reported in 1978 E.L.T. (J 624) 1978. The Counsel however, did not challenge the action taken in so far as penalty under section 112 (b) is concerned. He pleaded that the quantum of penalty was disproportionate to the value of the goods and also the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. 19. Government of India have carefully considered the submissions made in the revision application and during the course of personal hearing and have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur v. Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf [1978 E.L.T. (J 624) ]. The Bombay High Court has held that a proposition of law laid down by a High Court is binding on quasi judicial authorities throughout the country. If there were no other decision on the question whether the proceeding relating to confiscation of the goods can be continued even after the expiry of the period prescribed under sec. 110(2) Government would have been bound by the Calcutta High Court decision of 3-8-1977, reliance on which has been placed by the petitioner. Government, however, observe that on this question there are several pronouncements by various High Courts including the two decisions of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court itself where it has been clearly held that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 110(2) merely confers a right on the person concerned for return of the goods and that further proceedings regarding confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty can still be continued. The Calcutta High Court in two Division Bench decisions in Sheikh Mohammad Sayeed v. Assistant Collector of Customs an....