SANGHAI BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a firm carrying on business of panmasala, kirana and juributi merchants and commission agents and distributors of Kamala Pasand and panmasala and also engaged in the business of betelnuts during May/June, 2008 had purchased betelnuts from M/s. Srikant Thander having its office at Ramkrishnapur, Little Andaman. The said betelnuts were transhipped from Hut Bay to the Kolkata Port. Therefrom, the goods were carried to the petitioner's godown at Kashipur Road, Kolkata where they were lying stored. In the meantime, the petitioner started the process of selling the goods.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on 17th July, 2008 some officers of the P and I Branch, Headquarters West Bengal, Kolkata, led by the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) P and I Branch, Headquarters, West Bengal, respondent No.5 raided the said godown and found 445 bags of betelnuts. In spite of production of all relevant documents regarding acquisition and possession of the goods, the respondent No.5 and the Seizing Officer, Inspector of Customs (Preventive), Headquarters, P and i Branch, C.C P., West Bengal, Kolkata, respondent No.6, issued a detention memo dated 17th July, 2008 under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter, summons under Section 108 of the Act was issued in the name of Raj Kumar Jain, a partner of the petitioner in compliance thereof, the petitioner duly appeared. Statement was tendered regarding lawful purchase and procurement of the goods. Thereafter, by two written representations, dated 13th October, 2008 and 16th October, 2008, addressed to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal, Kolkata and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive and Intelligence), West Bengal, Kolkata, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 respectively, request was made for release of the goods which was not adhered to. Meanwhile on 8th December, 2008 an order was issued under Section 110 of the Act whereby the detained goods were seized by the respondent No.6. By a letter dated 10th December, 2008 a request was made to the respondent No.2 to provisionally release the goods in accordance with law. Since representations had no effect, a demand for justice dated 19th December, 2008 was sent to the Additional Commissioner of Customs. (Preventive), West Bengal. Kolkata. On 12th January, 2009 respondent No,4 issued a notice to the petitioner to show- cause before respondent No.2 why the time limit for issuance of the show- cause notice under Section 124 of the Act should not be extended by another sixty days under Section 110(2) of the Act and whether the petitioner intended to be heard in person. On 13th January, 2009 the petitioner filed a reply to the said show-cause notice opposing extension of time limit for issuance of show-cause notice and a prayer was made for giving an opportunity of hearing on 15th January, 2009.

(3.) It has been stated that though on 15th January, 2009 the petitioner along with his learned Advocate duly attended the office of the respondent No.2 in the morning for appearing at the personal hearing, however, the said respondent was not available. The petitioner was informed that as the respondent No.2 was busy with official work, on 15th January, 2009 it would not be possible to hold the hearing. It has been alleged that the petitioner's effort to meet the respondent No.4 on 15th January, 2009 met with the same fate. Recording these facts and mentioning that the period of six months would be expiring on 16th January, 2009, a letter dated 15th January, 2009 was served on the authorities on the same day. Since neither an opportunity of hearing was granted within six months from 17th July, 2008 nor any order extending the time on the expiry of six months was passed and communicated to the petitioner, being aggrieved, on 22 January, 2009 the writ petition was filed praying for release of the goods.