2000 (7) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the petitioners in the above writ petitions were mis-declared, the respondents have seized the same. Hence, the above writ petitions. 2.In W.P. No. 8628 of 2000, the petitioner prays for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondents to release the goods covered under the Unaccompanied Baggages No. 900/2000 and T.R. No. 737/2000 seized by the first respondent on 15-5-2000 and to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....004/- and Rs. 1,14,840/- in these writ petitions. Thereafter, the first respondent, after a further investigation valued the goods of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8628 and 8656 of 2000 as Rs. 2,44,412/- and Rs. 2,32,260/- respectively. 5.Placing reliance on the decision in Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kochi, reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the learned counsel for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impleading the Union of India, and that the goods seized from the petitioners are not bona fide domestic articles, but they are goods of commercial nature, which can be confiscated by the respondents by exercising power under Sections 108 to 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is further contended that as the respondents have already initiated confiscation proceedings under Sections 111(d) and 111(m....