9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the inadvertent typographical error in the writ petition regarding the receipt of notice u/s 124, the release of a seized car imported by the petitioner, and the applicability of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. For the first issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged an error in Paragraph 11 of the writ petition regarding the receipt of the show cause notice u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had actually received the notice after a year from the date of detention of the car, which was beyond the prescribed period. The counsel requested a correction in the petition to reflect the accurate timeline of notice receipt. Regarding the release of the seized car, a Mercedes Benz CLS-320CDi, the petitioner sought relief as no show cause notice u/s 124 had been issued within the stipulated period following the seizure. Citing a previous court decision, it was argued that failure to issue the notice within the specified time frame mandated the return of the goods to the rightful owner. The court agreed with this interpretation and directed the unconditional release of the imported car. In light of the above arguments and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the court found that the failure to issue the show cause notice within the prescribed period rendered the subsequent notice issued in 2013 irrelevant to the case. Consequently, the court ordered the unconditional release of the goods and allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.
|
