2011 (8) TMI 818 - SC - Customs

Show cause notice to declare property as illegal - involvement in smuggling of gold - Held That - High Court has not referred to the facts, nor considered the validity of the notices under Section 6 of the Act and the orders of forfeiture under Section 7 of the Act with reference to the facts and provisions of SAFEM Act and the decisions of this Court. Case referred back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Forfeiture of properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
2. Interpretation of Section 3(1)(c), 6, and 7 of SAFEM Act.
3. Validity of notices under Section 6 and orders of forfeiture under Section 7.
4. Application of precedents in determining illegally acquired properties under SAFEM Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the forfeiture of properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEM Act). The competent authority had issued show cause notices proposing to declare properties as illegally acquired and forfeit them to the Central Government.

2. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3(1)(c), 6, and 7 of the SAFEM Act. The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties had upheld the forfeiture orders with some modifications. The respondents challenged the proceedings through writ petitions.

3. The validity of the notices under Section 6 and orders of forfeiture under Section 7 was questioned. The High Court, in its order, did not refer to the facts of the case or the relevant provisions of the SAFEM Act. The Supreme Court found merit in the submission that the High Court did not consider the validity of the notices and orders with reference to the law and previous judgments.

4. The appellant argued that the High Court decision did not adequately consider the precedents set by the Supreme Court in interpreting illegally acquired properties under the SAFEM Act. The appellant contended that the High Court's reliance on a previous case was misplaced as it did not consider the specific provisions of the SAFEM Act and relevant Supreme Court decisions.

5. The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, found merit in the appellant's arguments. The Court held that the High Court order lacked consideration of facts, validity of notices, and orders of forfeiture with reference to the SAFEM Act and relevant legal precedents. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matters for fresh consideration in line with the law and established legal principles.

6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, remitted the matters to the High Court for reconsideration, and clarified that the order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases or the legal issues involved. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering legal provisions and precedents in forfeiture proceedings under the SAFEM Act for a fair and just decision.