TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent No. 6, Eastern Enterprises, Ltd., who were engaged in the business of weaving imported raw silk yarn into fabric, on 11th October, 2000 and 1st November, 2000. According to the appellants the said respondent forwarded the said goods to their Varanasi office for manufacturing fabric in Varanasi. 3.On 9th November, 2000, the said goods of the appellants, while in the custody of the respondent No. 6 at Varanasi, were detained and seized by the Inspector, Customs, Varanasi Division, under Section 110(1) of the said Act. It is the case of the appellants that 297 bales belonging to the appellants and sent to the respondent No. 6 were part of the 360 bales covered by the detention and seizure order dated 9th November, 2000. It appears further that on the basis of representations made by the appellants supported by certain documents as to the genuineness of the import of the said goods, the Superintendent of Customs, Varanasi Division, by a letter dated 11th January, 2001, released 46 bales out of the total quantity of 297 bales of raw silk yarn and continued to detain the balance consignment of 251 bales. Inasmuch as, despite repeated demands and representations made on b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....meaning of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that actual seizure of the goods took place on 1st March, 2001, Mr. Panja submitted that although the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the said Act provides that where it is not practicable to seize the goods, the owner of the said goods could be directed by an order not to remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of the concerned officer, in the instant case the dominion over the goods went out of the hands of the appellants as soon as on 22nd November, 2000, the rooms in which the detained and/or seized goods were kept were sealed by the Customs Officers (P), Varanasi Division. Mr. Panja submitted that the fact relating to the sealing of the rooms by the said Customs authorities would be evident from the Supurdnama executed by the person in whose custody, the said goods were kept and which has been made Annexure 'X' collectively to the affidavit-in-reply affirmed on behalf of the appellants. 8.In support of his submission Mr. Panja firstly referred to a Bench decision of this court in Collector of Customs and Central Excise, West Bengal & Ors. v. Hindustan Motors ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 124 having been issued, the petitioner was entitled to release of the goods under Section 110(2) of the Act. The learned Judge negated such submission on the ground that since no seizure had been effected, the mere refusal to release the goods until final assessment could not be considered as seizure for the purposes of Section 110(2) of the said Act. 13.Mr. Panja submitted that the facts in Surendra Kumar Banthia's case were totally different from the facts of this case and the learned Single Judge in Banthia's case did not have occasion to consider the petitioner's loss of dominion over the goods in question. 14.Mr. Panja submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge was not capable of being sustained and was liable to be set aside and a writ in the nature of Mandamus should issue to the concerned respondent to release the goods of the appellants seized by the Inspector, Customs, Varanasi Division on 9th November, 2001, under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 15.Appearing for the respondents, Mr. Mani Bhusan Sarkar urged that the learned Single Judge had very correctly held that no seizure had, in fact, been effected on 9th November, 2000, and that the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were sealed by the Customs Officers, Varanasi Division. The facts of this case are squarely covered by the facts of the Hindustan Motors case (supra). Once the dominion over the goods passed out of the hands of the appellant-company it tantamounted to seizure for all practical purposes. It is one thing for the goods to be kept detained in a manner where the owner thereof has access to the same but is prevented by a prohibitory order from dealing with the same. The situation is radically altered when the owner of the goods no longer has access thereto and has no control over the same. 21.In Banthia's case (supra), the learned Single Judge was considering a case where the customs authorities had refused to release certain goods, which had been imported, without a Bond backed by a Bank guarantee to the extent of 30% of the assessable value of the said goods. It is in such context that the learned Judge was called upon to consider whether the concerned party was entitled to release of the goods since no adjudication proceedings had been initiated within six months from the date of arrival of the goods. As was observed by the learned Judge, there was no element of seizure involved i....