9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Timeliness of notice to show cause for confiscated goods under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Interpretation of Sections 110(2) and 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Validity of service of notice through registered post. Analysis: The judgment concerns an application challenging the confiscation of goods seized by customs authorities from the petitioner's office. The primary issue revolves around the timeliness of the notice to show cause for the confiscated goods. The petitioner argued that the notice was received after the prescribed period of six months from the date of seizure, as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the customs authorities contended that the notice was served within the statutory period. The petitioner's counsel relied on Section 110(2) of the Act, which mandates the return of seized goods if no notice is given within six months of seizure. The customs authorities argued that the notice was served within the stipulated time frame, citing Section 153 of the Act, which allows service through registered post. They referenced a Madras High Court decision to support their position, emphasizing that effective service is not a requirement for compliance with the Act. The judge, concurring with the Madras High Court decision, held that the notice served through registered post within six months, even if returned undelivered, is deemed effective service under the Act. Consequently, the order of confiscation could not be challenged based on the timing of the notice. The application was dismissed, ruling in favor of the customs authorities. The judgment highlights the importance of statutory compliance in serving notices under the Customs Act, 1962 and emphasizes the legal validity of service through registered post within the prescribed period.
|
