2006 (10) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act') on 3-10-2002. Thereafter, neither any show cause notice was issued under Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Act nor the goods were released. On expiry of the period specified under the said provisions, the authorities could not confiscate the goods. On 25-4-2003, the show cause notice was given in extended period which was set aside by the Tribunal on 10-12-2003 [2004 (164) E.L.T. 266 (Tri. - Del.)] vide order Annexure P.l. Thereafter, investigation was completed vide order dated 13-4-2005, Annexure P.2. Relevant observations and findings in the order are extracted below :- "68. Market enquiries were conducted on 25-8-2003 to ascertain the value ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d D.K. Singhal in their statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. The fact is also clear from the statement of Shri Bakshi Ram as he could not provide the name, telephone number and place where his overseas buyer was situated. He has also opened his Delhi office in the premises occupied by Shri Jai Singh." xx xx xx xx xx "105. M/s. B.R. Enterprises have attempted to export a total number of 1048 Cartons under Invoice No. BRE/12/2002 both dated 19-8-2002 containing spanners and Ring Spanners in the guise of Cobalt bearing tools bit with declared FOB Value of Rs. 33,85,397/-. On Market Enquiry the value of the spanner set has been found to be from Rs. 2.96 to Rs. 74/-per spanner set against the declared FOB value of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal before the Tribunal, which was pending. 3. In the reply filed, it has not been disputed that the period for taking action for confiscation of goods of the petitioner has expired and the goods have been ordered to be released, though it was held that the same were liable for confiscation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has granted stay on 11-8-2005 for depositing the amount imposed as penalty in an application for waiver of pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal, taking into account the fact that the goods were in the custody of the department. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the goods had been illegally detained, the petitioner was entitled to damages. Reliance has been placed on judgment of t....