ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. CHARAN DAS MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under a certificate, raises two questions. The first is as to the nature of the power of the Collector of Customs under the proviso to the second sub-section of Section 110 of the customs Act, 52 of 1962, and the second is as to whether the Collector under that proviso can extend the period for giving notice under Section 124 (a) of the Act either after the initial period of six months or the extended period has already expired.

(2.) In 1963, the respondent carried on business as a dealer in watches in the name and style of Wallton Watch Company in Calcutta. In 1955, he also used to have another business premises where he carried on the same business in the name of Waloon Watch Company. That business was wound up in that year and he had the stock-in-trade of that business carried on in the name of Wallton Company.

(3.) On March 19, 1963, the Rummaging staff under the appellant raided the respondent's business premises and seized 218 watches, all of foreign make, 87 of these watches, however, were released on the respondent then and there producing vouchers relating to them. Later on, 21more watches were released on September 18, 1963 and February 27, 1964 on more vouchers having been produced. The case of the Customs authorities, however, was that he was not able to produce documentary evidence in respect of the rest of the watches,. And therefore, their release was not possible.