JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The question of law framed in these two appeals are common; it is as follows:

“Did the CESTAT fall into error in holding that goods had to be released in the circumstances of the case since no notice preceded extension of detention under Proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962?”

2. In these two appeals, the respondents imported consignments of rough diamond from Hong Kong and filed Bills of Entry for their clearance through ICD, Jaipur. It was alleged that during scrutiny of the said Bills of Entry by the Directorate of Revenue Investigation (hereafter referred to as 'DRI'), it was found that the imported consignments were heavily overvalued. The articles, were therefore, were seized for further investigation on 8.8.2018 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on reasonable belief that the they were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act as the IEC holder, allegedly was found not to be the actual importer and a true declaration were not made as stipulated by Section 46 of the Act.