M M JOYS INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are preferred by a partnership firm praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of detention of raw materials dated 10.1.1992 and 11.1.1992 in respect of the factory at No. 17, Devaki Ammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30 and also in respect of Godown at No. 41, Gajapathy Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30 and also praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the seizure and detention effected on 10.1.1992 and 11.1.1992.

(2.) The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Toys, Chargeable Lamps, Video Games and Electronic Chiming Devices and Other allied products and has its factory at No. 17, Devaki-Ammal Street. Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30 and Godown at No. 41, Gajapathy Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30, It seems that most of the components required for the manufacture of the above said items are imported by the petitioner through the Madras Port and cleared after necessary assessment and payment of duty. On 9.1,1992, at about 5-30 p.m. the Officers of the Central Excise, Head Quarters, Preventing Unit visited the factory of the petitioner checked the bills of entry relating to the clearance of the imported components meant for manufacturing the above mentioned items. Again on 10.1.1992 at about 1.00 p.m. it seems the factory of the petitioner was inspected and the officers of the Central Excise Department seized all the Finished Touch lamps numbering 42, Optic Fibre Lamps numbering 25, Walkie L.C.D. Games numbering 14 and Train Key Chain numbering 34 and an order of detention was passed in respect of the raw materials in the factory which are shown in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No. 876 of 1992. It seems that the Officers of the Central Excise Department also detained the raw materials in the godown of the petitioner on 11.1.1992, and also seized the finished products kept there on the same day. The finished goods seized by the Officers of the Central Excise Department were taken away by them to the office of the third respondent. On 23.1.1992, the Superintendent of Centra! Excise, Head Quarters., Madras-34, the third respondent herein issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the partners of the firm to appear before him on 27.1.92 along with the documents specified therein. Aggrieved by the seizure of the finished goods and the detention of raw materials and the issue of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioner firm is before me.

(3.) It is alleged in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that the petitioner engaged in the manufacture of Fan Lamp, Emergency Lamp, Touch Lamp, Video Games and Train Key Chain with imported components duly assessed and cleared under proper bill of entry, in the absence of any reason to believe on the part of the authorities concerned that the goods are liable to confiscation, the exercise of the power of seizure and detention is wholly without jurisdiction. It is also alleged that all the bills of entry under which clearance of the imported items was made, were perused by the authorities concerned, that the goods are not liable to confiscation, the exercise of the power of seizure and detention is wholly without jurisdiction. It is also alleged that all the bills of entry under which clearance of the imported items was made were taken away by the officers who visited the office on 10.1.1992. It is also stated that the said bills of entry vouch for the valid import and that there is absolutely no basis and circumstances for entertaining a reasonable belief that the goods seized are liable to be confiscated or to be proceeded against. It is further alleged that on the face of the documents available in the factory and in the office, it cannot be said that the goods are tainted goods. It is also stated that the Toys were imported in SKD condition and the case was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs by imposing redemption fine and penalty by order dated 25.1.92. It is also alleged that if the authorities had any material to show that the petitioner had crossed exemption limit in the manufacture of the items referred to above, they could have issued a show cause notice calling upon to file a declaration as to the quantity and value of the items manufactured and also to obtain a licence if necessary. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the officers did not scrutinise any accounts or ledgers to arrive at any reasonable belief that the finished goods are liable to confiscation, that after release for home Consumption, the goods imported ceased to be imported goods and thereafter there is no burden cast on the petitioner-firm under Section 125 of the Customs Act. It is also alleged that the petitioner firm is an assessee under Sales Tax and Income Tax Act and that they are maintaining Ledgers, Day Books and Bill Books etc. and that all the documents were taken away by the authorities concerned. It is further stated that the case on hand is not a case where the petitioner has ever avoided any show cause notice and that the circumstances of the case do not warrant such a drastic step of seizure. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the seizure and detention is wholly without jurisdiction. With these allegations, the petitioner firm is before me.