1995 (11) TMI 470 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the seizure under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.
2. Whether there was a reason to believe for the seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act.
3. Legality of the seizure by the commercial tax authorities.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Seizure under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act:
The petitioners contended that the show cause notice regarding the seizures dated 3.3.94 and 10.3.94 was not served upon the owners of the goods within six months, making the seizure illegal under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The court examined whether the notices were served in accordance with Section 153 of the Customs Act, which allows service by registered post. The court concluded that the notices were validly served when sent by registered post and the burden of proof to rebut this presumption lay on the petitioners. The court held that the notices were presumed to be served within a reasonable time, thus the seizure was valid.

2. Reason to Believe for the Seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act:
The petitioners argued that there was no reason to believe for the seizures made on 16.2.94, 4.4.94, 10.3.94, and 7.4.94, making them illegal and without jurisdiction. The court noted that the Customs authorities had reasons to believe that the petitioners were attempting to export goods illegally by mis-declaration. The court emphasized that the belief should be considered as occurring in the minds of the seizing authority and not the court. The court found that the reasons for the belief were sufficiently documented and justified the seizures. The court upheld the seizures as legal, stating that the Customs authorities had the right to seize the goods based on the belief that they were liable for confiscation.

3. Legality of the Seizure by the Commercial Tax Authorities:
In the case of Tirupati, it was argued that the seizure by the commercial tax authorities was also illegal as no reasons to believe were recorded for such seizure. The court examined the records and found that the commercial tax authorities had reasons to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. The court held that the seizure by the commercial tax authorities was legal and justified.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ applications, holding that the seizures were valid and legal. The court emphasized that the Customs authorities had acted within their jurisdiction and had sufficient reasons to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. The court also noted that the petitioners could raise their contentions in the confiscation proceedings before the competent authority.