2011 (4) TMI 619 - HC - Customs

Detention of the consignment - it is clear that although no specific order of seizure has been issued to the writ-petitioner, it is apparent that there has been actual detention of the goods under Section 110 of the Act and time will run for giving show-cause notice under Section 124(a) from at least 4th August, 2010. - In the case before us, it appears that the respondent authority has also treated the seizure to be operative and consequently, has started investigation by issuing summons under Section 108 of the Act and has also given show-cause notice for extension of time by further six months. - we do not approve her finding that there is no time period for issuing an order of seizure under Section 110 of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of consignment by Customs Authority without issuing show-cause notice or order of seizure under Customs Act.
2. Allegations of harassment and inaction by Customs Authority leading to inability to take action under relevant provisions.
3. Interpretation of provisions regarding detention, seizure, and time limits under Customs Act.
4. Appeal against the order directing release of detained consignment if no show-cause notice issued within a specified period.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The writ-petitioner's consignments were detained by the Customs Authority without the issuance of a show-cause notice or a formal order of seizure under the Customs Act. The Authority's inaction led to the petitioner's inability to act under Section 110(2) of the Act. The petitioner alleged harassment by the Customs Authority without following due process.

Issue 2: The learned Single Judge noted that a notice for extension of time to issue a show-cause notice under Section 124(a) was issued to the petitioner, but it was deemed unauthorized. The Judge found that there was no formal order of seizure or detention under Section 110, emphasizing that goods cannot be indefinitely detained without due process. The Judge declined to release the consignments due to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.

Issue 3: The High Court disagreed with the Single Judge's observation that there is no time limit for issuing an order of seizure under Section 110. The Court held that detention itself implies the running of time under Section 124(a), even without a formal seizure order. The Court clarified that the owner of the consignment can utilize Section 110(2) from the date of detention, despite the absence of a formal seizure order.

Issue 4: The appeal was disposed of with modifications to the Single Judge's order, emphasizing that detention triggers the time under Section 124(a) and the owner can seek remedies from the date of detention. The Court did not delve into the justification of the extension of time under Section 110(2) but allowed the appellant to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with the law.

The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Sambuddha Chakrabarti.