MAPSA TAPES PVT LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition calls in question search and consequent seizure of goods belonging to the petitioners vide seizure memos dated 24-2-2005, Annexure P. 5 and 29-3-2005, Annexure P. 12 and summons dated 29-3-2005, Annexure P. 14,1-4-2005, Annexures P. 16 and P. 17.

(2.) Case of the petitioners is that they are engaged in importing goods from China and Taiwan. The goods are imported for home consumption i.e. for mixing with masses of the goods of the country. They filed bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act 1962 (for short, 'the Act'). It is further submitted that in respect of goods i.e. PVC coated fabrics imported during the period December, 2004 to January 2005, covered by bills of entry, Annexure P.I (collectively), the proper officer cleared the bills of entries under Section 47 of the Act and the petitioners deposited the requisite duty. As far as second consignment of goods, which are woven silk fabrics, B Grade, bills of entries were cleared on provisional assessment basis on deposit of duty and furnishing of PD bond and bank guarantee. After clearance, the goods were stored at 144, HSIDC, Kundli, Industrial Estate, Sonepat. On 8-2-2005 at 5.30 PM, the officials of the Customs Department came at the godown of the petitioners and sealed their godown. The petitioners made representation pointing out that action of the respondents was illegal. Godowns were desealed on 24-2-2005 but again the respondents seized the goods and left the same on superdari with petitioner No. 2. Undisputed allegation of the petitioners is that similar goods belonging to the petitioners as well as other parties had been cleared under similar circumstances before/ during/after the consignments of the petitioners were received. Bills of entry in respect of such goods were Annexure P. 19 (collectively). The petitioners also received summons asking petitioner No. 2 and his son"to aprecr before the authorities.

(3.) Action of the respondents has been challenged on the grounds that once the goods have been cleared under Section 47 of the Act, adjudication had taken place, hence, there was no power of confiscation. In respect of goods which were cleared on provisional assessment basis, adjudication could be finalised and power of seizure could not be exercised. It is also submitted that samples of goods are already lying with the respondents. It is also submitted that summoning under Section 108 of the Act was also without jurisdiction.