Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The petitioner company imported 103 machines which it described as Power Tillers between 10 August 1993 and 7th January 1994. In the Bills of Entry the relevant Tariff Item was mentioned as 8432.80. The goods were assessed on that basis and released under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The goods were warehoused in the petitioner's warehouse. On 8th March 1994 they were sought to be detained by virtue of an order Section 110 of the Act on the ground that they had been imported by misdeclaration and were liable to confiscation under the Act.
(2.) The order of detention was challenged by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution on 5th April, 1994. By a judgment and order dated 5th April 1994 A.N. Ray, J. made the Rule absolute and quashed the impugned order of detention. An appeal was preferred from this order by the Customs Authorities. Before this the petitioners claim to have sold some of the machines. The order dated 5-4-1994 was set aside and the matter remanded back to be heard on affidavits.
(3.) Affidavits were filed. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners that the impugned order of detention had been issued by the Preventive Officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence, who had no jurisdiction to do so. The Department produced relevant notification from which it was apparent that the Preventive Officer of the DRI had in fact been empowered to exercise powers inter alia under Section 110 of the Act. The point was decided as a preliminary issue against the petitioners by an order dated 19th September, 1994.;