Page 118 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

452 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

REPRESENTED BY : Shri K. Rajeshwaran, for the Appellant.
Shri R. Aravindan, Senior Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - The writ petition is filed in the nature of mandamus seeking a
direction against the respondent/the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudica-
tion), Williams Road, Trichy, to provisionally release the gold, which had been
seized in OR. No. 256 of 2019, dated 22-10-2019 under Section 110(A) of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962, pending disposal of the adjudication process.
2. The writ petitioner, P. Pandithurai, S/o. Ponniah, No. 1/19, Server
Street, Athangudi, Sivagangai, had arrived from Singapore at Trichy airport on
22-10-2019. He was found in possession of three unfinished gold chains weighing
199.5 grams. He claimed that he had brought the said gold chains for his sister’s
marriage, which was scheduled to be held in the month of February 2020. How-
ever, the unfinished gold chains have been seized. In this regard, the petitioner
made an application for release of the seized gold chains, taking advantage of
Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. A representation was also given.
3. The petitioner had also placed reliance on the judgment of a Learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos. 2985 and 3124 of 2018 (Tajudeen v.
Hasina Balkis), which were decided together on 21-2-2018, whereby, a Learned
Single Judge of this Court, had held that when the authorities were yet to issue
the show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, under the
provisions of Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, if the petitioner deposits
50% of the duty for the value of the gold chains seized from him, the respondents
shall release the seized gold items. That judgment was taken up in appeal, which
is reported in 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 425 (Mad.) (Commissioner of Customs, Tricky v.
Tajudeen). A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 11-10-2018, had upheld
the order of the Learned Single Judge and had stated that the Department can
proceed with the show cause notice.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also primarily based his ar-
guments on the reasoning of the Learned Single Judge. It was stated that in the
petitioner’s representation dated 22-10-2019, that the petitioner is ready and will-
ing to pay 50% of the value of the seized property and also to give necessary un-
dertaking as required under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondent had seriously objected to the grant of any relief for the peti-
tioner. The Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of
this Court reported in 2016 (2) CWC 191 = 2016 (331) E.L.T. 337 (Mad.) (Sheik Mo-
hammed Rafique Ahmed v. The Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs Airport, New
Customs House, Meenambakkam, Chennai, 27) wherein holding that when adjudica-
tion process has not been completed and only after the adjudication process, the
adjudicating authority would decide whether the goods confiscated under Sec-
tions 111(d) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962, could be released or not and the
goods confiscated cannot be released under Section 111(1) of the Customs Act,
1962. A direction was issued by a Learned Single Judge to the adjudicating au-
thority to dispose of the proceedings at the earliest, after affording necessary op-
portunity.
6. The Learned Counsel also relied on the Division Bench judgment in
W.A. No. 377 of 2016 (Malabar Diamond Gallery Private Limited v. Additional Direc-
tor General, DRI Chennai and Others) dated 28-7-2016 [2016 (341) E.L.T. 65 (Mad.),
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  118