TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elted the foreign biscuits in presence of the petitioner No. 2. Subsequently petitioner No. 2 retracted his statement stating that the gold seized from his possession was obtained out of the old ornaments of the customers which were received by his employer i.e. petitioner No. 1 for manufacturing new ornaments. The Officer thereafter raided the premises of petitioner No. 1 on 15-7-1990. The statement of Sri Gopal Chaddha petitioner No. 1 was recorded on 23-8-1990 who corroborated the second statement of the petitioner No. 2. However, petitioners were served show cause notice, dated 9-1-1991 after expiry of six months i.e. on 18-1-1991 in which allegations of contravention of the provisions of Customs Act were made and they were asked to sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition the Tribunal modified its order, dated 21-2-1997 and an option was given to the petitioners to take delivery of the seized goods on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in view of the provisions contained in Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act. 2.Aggreived by the orders of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying that by issuing a writ of certiorari order, dated 20-10-1998 passed by respondent No. 1 be quashed and mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner (Customs), Gorakhpur be issued to release the seized six pieces of gold forthwith. 3.On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed in which the orders passed by Tribunal are justified.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved within six months of the seizure of the goods and hence the goods were liable to be returned to the possession of the person from whom they were seized in view of the provisions contained under Section 110(2) of the Act. Such claim of the petitioners has been dealt with by the Tribunal at length. The assertion of the petitioners that the notice was served beyond the period of six months from the date of seizure was accepted by the Tribunal but it took the view that the provisions of Section 124 (a) of the Act are distinct and independent of the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. The Tribunal observed in its order that, "the legal consequences of the Customs Department in not giving the notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 125 of the Act. It is submitted that the Tribunal by its order, dated 20-10-1998 partly allowed the correction application and modified its earlier order by giving an option to Ram Sumer, petitioner No. 2 from whom the gold was seized for release of the goods on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of gold. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the provisions to the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Act. His submission is that according to the proviso the amount of fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. There is substance in the submission of Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners. In th....