IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1110 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.1.2010 M/s Abhas Spinners Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a direction for release of cash, bank balance, shares/mutual finds in compliance of judgment of this Court dated 23.9.2009 in CWP No.7972 of 2009 in the case of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it imported certain goods but the same were seized on 22.1.2009 alleging mis-declaration of value of the goods. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, which was allowed with the following finding:- “......The aforesaid argument would not in any case survive because till today no order extending the period beyond the period of six months in terms of Section 110(2) read with Section 153 of the Act has been communicated to the petitioner and the period of six months expired on 22.9.2009 even if the argument is taken to be sustainable in law. Therefore, we are of the view that the argument is wholly without substance and is liable to be rejected. Moreover, the record shows that the revenue has all along thought CWP No.1110 of 2010 that the period of six months has to commence from the date of detention i.e. 23.1.2009 and not from the date of seizure. Had it been thought there was hardly any necessity for the Commissioner to hurriedly pass an order on 20.7.2009 whereas in the show cause notice itself period of seven days from the date of receipt of show cause notice was given. This all looks to be after thought and, therefore, the argument has no substance.” In view of above finding, the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote letters dated 14.10.2009, 31.10.2009, 19.11.2009 and 22.12.2009 Annexures P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-6 respectively, claiming the return of seized articles as a consequence of finding recorded by the Division Bench, to which to no response has been received. 3. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct respondent No.2 to take a decision on claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, for complying with the order mentioned above, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a speaking order and conveying the same to the petitioner. 4. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 25, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2