9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the seizure of 59 wristwatches. 2. Validity of the show cause notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Seizure of 59 Wristwatches The appellants challenged the seizure of 59 wristwatches from their locker at the Oriental Bank of Commerce. They contended that the officer seizing the goods did not or could not have had a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled. Under Section 110(1) of The Customs Act, 1962, a proper officer may seize goods if he has reason to believe they are liable to confiscation. Section 111 deals with the confiscation of improperly imported goods. The court must determine if the officer had formed the belief and whether there were relevant materials for such belief. The seizure list indicated that the officer acted on a reasonable belief that the wristwatches were smuggled as no documents were produced to prove lawful possession. The court found that the officer had formed a reasonable belief based on the circumstances, and the seizure was upheld. 2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice The appellants argued that the show cause notice was invalid as it was not issued by the proper officer. Under Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Collector or Deputy Collector of Customs is authorized to adjudicate without limit, but the Assistant Collector can only adjudicate if the value of the goods does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned notice was issued by the Assistant Collector, which the appellants claimed was invalid. Sections 123 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, were also examined. Section 123 places the burden of proving that the goods are not smuggled on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. Section 124 requires a notice to be given before confiscation or penalty. The appellants contended that the adjudication process must begin with the proper officer issuing the show cause notice. However, the court found that the issuance of the notice was ministerial in nature and could be done by an officer other than the adjudicating authority. The court also referred to the Adjudication Manual, which allows officers other than the adjudicating authority to issue the notice. The court concluded that the notice was valid. 3. Vagueness of the Show Cause Notice The appellants claimed that the notice was vague, particularly pointing to paragraph 25, which cited Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the notice was not vague as it detailed the facts and relevant legal provisions. The notice was not seen as indicating a closed or pre-determined mind. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of both the seizure of the wristwatches and the show cause notice. There was no order as to costs.
|
