TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioners are traders in various types of dyes, dye intermediaries and other chemicals. The writ petitioners brought from a foreign supplier 300 Kgs. of "dispersed Dyes Pink" of German origin (hereinafter referred to as "the goods") to Calcutta on or about 12/12/1993. Upon arrival of the goods at the Calcutta Airport, the writ petitioners filed a Bill of Entry for home consumption on 17th of December, 1993 under Section 46 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" before the Customs Authorities at Calcutta for clearance and release of the goods. The goods were, however, not released but were detained by the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, being the respondent No. 4 in this writ application, by passing an order of detention under Section 110 of the Act on 23/12/1993. On 30th of April, 1994, the writ petitioner received a draft show cause notice issued by the Customs Authorities without any number, date or signature. A reply to the draft show cause notice was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner. In reply it was, however, alleged that the draft show cause notice was neither dated nor signed. Without proceeding further on the draft show cause notice or on the reply to the same, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners, another show cause notice was issued by the authorities on 9th of June, 1994 which was received by the writ petitioners on 24th of June, 1994. It is an admitted position that the aforesaid show cause notice was posted from the Calcutta Airport Post Office on 22nd of June, 1994. It is also an admitted position that 22/06/1994 was the last date for giving the notice to show cause in terms of Section 124 (a) of the Act. Against refusal on the part of the Customs Authorities to release the goods, to accept the valuation of the goods as declared by the writ petitioners in the Bill of Entry and to issue a detention certificate acceptable to the Calcutta Airport Authority in respect of demurrage and other import charges and expenses incurred in respect of the goods, this writ petition has now been moved at the instance of the writ petitioners.

( 2 ) THE main question that I have to decide in this writ petition relates to interpretation of the word "given" as occurring in Sections 110 (2) and 124 (a) of the Act. This arises in this way.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, the word "given" in the context of the Customs Act must be interpreted to have meant that the show cause notice must have been received by the person or at least must have reached or tendered to the person against whom such show cause notice has been issued. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that as the show cause notice had been received by the writ petitioners after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure, the writ petitioners were entitled to release of the goods under Section 110 (2) of the Act. If the argument of the learned Counsel of the writ petitioners on the interpretation of the word "given" as occurring in Sections 110 (2) and 124 (a) of the Act is accepted, then direction must be given to release the goods in view of Section 110 (2) of the Act. If this argument is not accepted, question of release of the goods, may not arise.

( 4 ) MR. Basu, appearing, for the Customs Authorities, on the other hand, however, submits that such interpretation cannot be given to the word "given". According to him, the word "given" as occurring in Sections 110 (2) and 124 (a) of the Act would clearly mean the date on which the notice has been issued by the Customs Authorities. If this argument of Mr. Basu is accepted, then it must be held that the show cause notice was given within six months from the date of seizure and, therefore, the release of the goods shall not arise under Section 110 (2) of the Act.

( 5 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. After carefully considering the contentions so raised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document