TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is undisputed that the writ petitioners prayed for warehousing of the goods pending investigation under Section 49 of the said Act, and this was permitted. On 10th February, 1993 an order was issued by the Customs Authorities under Section 110(2) of the said Act. By this order the time to issue a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the said Act was extended for a period of 6 months. The order under Section 110(2) of the said Act was received by the writ petitioners on 15th February, 1993. The writ petitioners made a representation to the respondent-Authorities on 27th February, 1993 claiming release of the goods in question seized under Section 110 of the said Act inasmuch as the period of 6 months had expired from the date of the seizure. The writ petitioners also contended that no extension of time could be granted for the purpose of issuing a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the said Act without giving the writ petitioners an opportunity of being heard. Reliance was placed by the writ petitioners on various judicial decisions both of the Supreme Court and this Court. On 19th March, 1993 the writ petitioners' re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions of fact made in the writ petition. 4. Be that as it may, the parties negotiated with each other and on 30th June, 1993 suggested the form of order which has been referred to above. The respondent-Authorities, therefore, had adequate opportunity to consider the facts of the case and to instruct their Counsel correctly as to the case of the writ petitioners. 5. After the order dated 30th June, 1993 was passed the writ petitioners applied to the respondent-Authorities for the purpose of executing the necessary Bond. This was not made available to the writ petitioners. Ultimately, the Bond was made available to the writ petitioners through their Clearing Agent. The Bond was filled in and submitted. But the goods in question were, however, not released to the writ petitioners. An undated letter was made over to the writ petitioners by which the Customs Authorities have complained about the alleged defects in the Bond as submitted by the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners were accordingly asked to re-submit the Bond duly executed. It is to be emphasized that even till this date there was no whisper of the order dated 30th June, 1993 not having been passed upon instruction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10(2) of the said Act even if there was a subsisting seizure, the writ petitioners would not be entitled to the return of the goods in question because the Section provides for return of the goods to the person from whom they were seized. In this case the writ petitioners were never in possession of the goods in question and as such, could not claim that the goods should be returned to them. 10. Finally, it was stated that the order dated 30th June, 1993 should be modified by allowing final adjudication to be made and directing release of the goods only subject to payment of the Duty as found. 11. The writ petitioners have opposed this application and have stated that the order, sought to be modified, was, in fact, a consent order and could not be varied except by consent. The writ petitioners have relied upon several decisions in this regard including the decisions in the case of M.A. Cunningham Sircar v. Fred Stephens, reported in AIR 1931 Cal. 51, and in the case of Rajunder Narain Rao & Another v. Bijai Govind Singh, reported in 1837 (II) Moore's Indian Appeals, 181. 12. Secondly, it is contended by the writ petitioners that there was, in fact, a seizure all along and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Customs Authorities had every opportunity of going through the records in instructing their Counsel. If they had not done so they cannot be permitted to approach the Court and obtain relief on facts which should have been known to them even when the writ application was moved on 17th June, 1993. The facts relating to the difference in duty, all appear from telex messages received by the Customs Authorities in 1992 itself. They were, therefore, fully aware of the nature of the claim and the basis on which they were seeking to raise a demand against the petitioner. There was no fact subsequent to the order dated 30th June, 1993 which could warrant the Court in reviewing its order dated 30th June, 1993. The only stand taken by the respondent authorities is in paragraph 10 of the application where it is said that "the Customs Authorities recently come to learn the facts to which they reasonably apprehended that if the subject goods are released to the writ petitioners ........ the Government revenue would be totally lost." In that paragraph it has been stated that the writ petitioner is a front company of one M/s. Indian Telecom Limited. No particulars have been given as to when the....