Proper officer holding the goods not prohibited goods.

MISHRA, J

This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court, is directed against the judgment of Kanakaraj, J., in W.P. No. 3880 of 1991. The petitioner/appellant is the company engaged in importing of stainless steel melting scrap. It has got L-4 licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for manufacturing ingots after melting such imported stainless scrap. In or about February, 1991, according to the petitioner/appellant, its Managing Director contacted one Ashinkumar Kamdar, who was known as Indentor as well as Import Consultant in the field of iron and steel and other allied products, and informed him that the petitioner/appellant company would like to import stainless steel scrap at a competitive price. Kamdar suggested to import such scrap materials and also promised to help in securing materials. Thereupon, Kamdar floated enquiries and procured an officer from an exporter of Singapore by name K. Ramanlal & Co., Private Limited. Accordingly, it is said that 500 metric tonnes of stainless steel scrap, were agreed to be supplied by K. Ramanlal & Co. Private , Limited of Singapore, who offered to ship 120 metric tonnes out of which, 90 metric tonnes would be coil-ends and the remaining 30 metric tonnes would be general scrap and shipped the said goods under its invoice dated 14-2-1991 by six containers from Singapore to Madras. The said goods arrived at the Madras port per Vessel WASPADA VOY 9012, covered by a Bill of Lading dated 14-2-1991. On landing of the said goods, the petitioner/appellant company filed the Bill of Entry for home consumption for the clearance of the goods. The said goods were thereafter examined by the officers of the respondents as per the normal practice of 20% check, who, after necessary examination, assessed the goods for duty by an order .under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').After the order, four out of the six containers were cleared from the port premises and were stored at a godown belonging to one Gemini Warehousing. It was at this stage that respondents 3 and 4 carried out certain seizure and ultimately, seized the two containers in the port area as well as the goods removed to the warehouse, under a seizure warrant. Questioning the validity of the said seizure, the petitioner/appellant company contendedinter aliathat once the imported goods were cleared under Section 47 of the Act, unless the order thereunder was reversed, no action could be taken either under Section 110 or under Section 111 of the Act and in any event, if there was any logical value of any suspicion of the third and the fourth respondents that the goods were likely to be used for any other purpose, they could act under Section 24 of the Act and order mutilation of the said goods to render them unfit for any other purpose other than melting. After going into the above statements and other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, Kanakaraj, J., has said :

"....So long as the proper officer has reasonable belief under Section 110 of the Act, I am of the view that the seizure must be Upheld, as to the nature and the action that the respondents may take by issuing a show-cause notice. It is to be seen only hereafter. Whether such an action will be hit by lack of power to review an earlier order or whether the respondents have an independent power to issue show-cause notice and adjudicate on the matter under independent, provisions of law are matters which will have to be seen only hereafter. All that I am laying down is that the authorities have the power of seizure in fit and proper cases. If such a power is not recognised, the implementation of the Act itself will become difficult. The argument that the respondents ought to have been careful before examining the case and before making the assessment is no doubt attractive. But in a given case, if a mistake has occurred or due to circumstances beyond the control of the proper offi