9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1812 - HC - CustomsProvisional release of the seized jewellery - Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The petitioners are directed to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the gold jewellery seized from them. On such deposit being made, the respondents 2 and 3 shall release the seized items forthwith. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall cooperate with the adjudication proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to seizure orders under Customs Act, 1962 and prayer for provisional release of seized jewellery. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, J. of the Madras High Court pertains to two writ petitions where the husband and wife, who had returned from Myanmar, had their goods seized by the third respondent upon arrival in India. The primary issue was the challenge to the seizure orders under the Customs Act, 1962, and the request for provisional release of the seized jewellery. The authorities had not yet issued a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned standing counsel representing the respondents argued that since the proceedings were at a preliminary stage, the question of quashing the seizure orders did not arise. However, they agreed to consider the prayer for provisional release of the seized items. The Court referred to a previous order dated 01.04.2011 in a similar case, where the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the seized items, and upon such deposit, the department was directed to release the seized items, with the authorities retaining the right to take appropriate action under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. In line with the previous approach, the Court directed the petitioners in the present cases to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the gold jewellery seized from them. Upon making this deposit, the respondents were ordered to release the seized items immediately. The judgment emphasized that the petitioners must cooperate with any adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondents. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petitions, with no costs imposed, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
|
