champagne and Annexure-V letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bond Section to the Circle Inspector of Excise, Ernakulam show that the ownership of champagne was changed from M/s.Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s.Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd. So, as permitted by the Customs, the Company acquired ownership over the liquor that was being transported is evident from these documents. Section 67 of the Customs Act says that the owner of any warehoused goods may with the permission of the proper officer, remove them from one warehouse to another subject to such conditions as may be prescribed for the due arrival of the warehoused goods at the warehouse to which the removal is permitted. It is the case of petitioners that when the goods were transported from one bonded warehouse to another with valid permission of the proper officer, they were intercepted at the Railway Station, Ernakulam by the 1st respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that actually owner of the goods was not in possession at the time of interception and seizure. This argument is sustainable since the provisions in the Customs Act discussed above will clearly show that the proper officer retains control over the warehoused goods, even when the goods are in transit. This becomes all the more clear, if we read Section 68 of the Customs Act. It deals with clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption. Relevant portion of Section 68, omitting the provisos, reads as follows:
