Sealing of the rooms in which the detained goods were kept amounted to an exercise of dominion over the goods and, therefore, constituted seizure within the meaning of Section 110 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th November, 2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 1304 of 2001, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondents to release all the imported goods of the appellants seized by the respondents on 9th November, 2000, under Section 110 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act".

( 2 ) AS will appear from the case made out by the appellants, a certain quantity of raw silk yarn was imported by the appellants which reached Calcutta Port at Falta on 24th June, 2000, and 10th August, 2000 and possession of the said goods were taken at Calcutta on 5th July, 2000 and 20th August, 2000, respectively. According to the appellants the entire raw materials covered by the said two consignments were sent by them to the respondent No. 6, Eastern Enterprises, Ltd. , who were engaged in the business of weaving imported raw silk yarn into fabric, on 11th October, 2000 and 1st November, 2000. According to the appellants the said respondent forwarded the said goods to their Varanasi office for manufacturing fabric in Varanasi.

( 3 ) ON 9th November, 2000, the said goods of the appellants, while in the custody of the respondent No. 6 at Varanasi, were detained and seized by the Inspector, Customs, Varanasi Division, under Section 110 (1) of the said Act. It is the case of the appellants that 297 bales belonging to the appellants and sent to the respondent No. 6 were part of the 360 bales covered by the detention and seizure order dated 9th November, 2000. It appears further that on the basis of representations made by the appellants supported by certain documents as to the genuineness of the import of the said goods, the Superintendent of Customs, Varanasi Division, by a letter dated 11th January, 2001, released 46 bales out of the total quantity of 297 bales of raw silk yarn and continued to detain the balance consignment of 251 bales. Inasmuch as, despite repeated demands and representations made on behalf of the appellants, the respondent authorities did not release the balance goods, the appellants filed the aforesaid writ application on 15th July, 2001, challenging the said detention and seizure of the appellants' goods and for a direction upon the said respondents to release the balance goods belonging to the appellants.

( 4 ) THE main ground of challenge to the said detention and seizure was that having seized the said goods on 9th November, 2000, the Customs authorities were under an obligation to issue a show cause notice to the appellants under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, within a period of six months from the date of the seizure, in order to give the appellants a reasonable opportunity of explaining as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated. Since according to the appellants such notice to show cause was issued on 30th July, 2001, the same was beyond the statutory period of six months and the detention not having been extended on sufficient grounds beyond such period, the authorities were under an obligation under Sub-section (2) of Section 124 of the said Act to return the seized goods to the appellants.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents it was contended that the goods in question had merely been detained on 9th November, 2000, in keeping with the proviso to Section 110 (1) of the said Act and that the goods were actually seized on 1st March, 2001, as per the seizure list and the show cause notice having been issued on 30th July, 2001, the same was well within the statutory period of six months.

( 6 ) ACCEPTING the contention of the respondents, the learned Single Judge was of the view that on 9th November, 2000, the Customs authorities had only detained the appellant's goods and that actual seizure was effected on 1st March, 2001, and that the notice to show cause issued on 30th July, 2001 was valid having been issued with