2004 (4) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the goods had been shown as EURO 5,50,000. The department subsequently gathered a copy of another invoice, dated 27-3-2003 issued by an Italian company viz. M/s. Technost Systemmi, wherein the value of the goods had been shown as EURO 17,90,000 and the goods were described as "Online Computer Hardware and Software". The "Supply Agreement" between the appellants and their supplier referred to the goods as "Online Lottery Terminals". From the documentary evidence gathered, it appeared to the Department that the appellants had misdeclared the value of the goods and filed the invoice with lesser value with intent to evade payment of Customs duty. Therefore, the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, statement....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. In this connection, ld. Counsel, relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lokenath Tolaram v. B.N. Rangwani [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1520 (S.C.)]. Counsel also relied on the Tribunal's decision in Uttam Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (81) E.L.T. 238], wherein Lokenath Tolaram (supra) was followed. Finally, Counsel relied on the Tribunal's decision in Vimal International v. Commissioner of Customs [2002 (146) E.L.T. 576]. 4. The DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. He has not relied on any case law on the issue. 5. We have examined the facts of this case and the case law cited by the ld. Counsel. The goods in question were, admittedly, provisionally released to the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e as also the Commissioner's order passed in adjudication thereof. 7. We may also explicitly state something which is corollary to the view we have already expressed. It is open to the Department to proceed under Section 124 for confiscation etc. without resort to Section 110(2) if there is any valid ground for taking action under the said Section 124. But the ends of justice would demand that any such action be taken within a reasonable period from the date of seizure of the goods. Inapplicability of Section 110(2) is not to be construed to mean that the Department can take any long time under Section 124. Having regard to the fact that almost one year has elapsed since the seizure of the goods and that the duty (as provisionally assess....