Indira Banerjee, J. - (1.) IT appears that between January 4, 2010 and March 15, 2010, the petitioner imported 17 consignments of Mulberry Silk Fabrics from China through Chennai Port under Bills of Entry which were assessed to duty. After the consignments were brought to Howrah and kept at the Railway Parcel Shed, the consignments were seized by the Customs Authorities. A show cause notice bearing C. No. VII(10)14/P & I/WB/10/1272, dated 2 -9 -2010 was issued "To Whom It May Concern" purportedly under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, the operative part whereof is set out herein below for convenience: The Notice is issued to the owner/owners of the said 'Unclaimed' goods, if there is any, to please show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC (P), West Bengal, Kolkata, Customs House (3rd Floor), 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700001 as to why the seized unclaimed goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(b) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty should not be imposed on him/them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 within 30 (thirty) days from the date of issuance of this notice. If no reply to this Notice is submitted within the above specified time limit, the case will be adjudicated with the provisions laid down under the Customs Act, 1962, and on the basis of available records. The petitioner duly replied to the aforesaid show cause notice by a letter dated 1st November, 2010, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition. Adjudication proceedings were commenced. The petitioner and the department were heard. The petitioner submitted its written submissions under cover of a letter dated November 12, 2010, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition. Further written submissions were filed under cover of a letter dated November 15, 2010. The Adjudicating Authority being the Additional Commissioner of Customs CC (P), W.B. Kolkata, passed an order of adjudication, dropping the proceedings against the petitioner. The relevant part of the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set out herein below for convenience. In view of the above, I am inclined to infer that so many factors as discussed above weigh in favour of the claimant. Therefore the impugned 16 cartons of mulberry silk as claimed by the party is not confiscable under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly no penal action against the notice/claimant is invokable under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The remaining No. 1 of carton of Mulberry silk relating to courier booking No. 5245/5 is confiscable u/s. 111(d) as there is no claimant. Order In view of the above -mentioned discussion, I drop the proceedings and order release of 16 cartons of silk as discussed in the table above to claimant/authorised representative/carrier. The balance 1 carton of Mulberry Silk claimed by none is confiscated u/s. 111(d) of the CA 62.
(2.) THE Department applied for review of the Appellate Order under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. In exercise of power conferred under Section 129D(2) the Commissioner of Customs passed an order dated November 18, 2010, inter alia, holding that the Additional Commissioner of Customs was legally correct in dropping the proceedings against the notice. The application for review was also rejected. In the aforesaid circumstances, there can be no ground for detention of the consignments in question. On behalf of the department it is submitted that the petitioner is required to make an application before the Assistant Commissioner (Seizure & Disposal) for release of the goods, which the petitioner has not done. The submission is difficult to accept. The Department seized the goods. Being unsuccessful in adjudication, in appeal or in the review application, the Department is obliged to immediately release the goods.
(3.) THE writ application is disposed of by directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to forthwith release the consignments in question and in any case within one week from date.;