9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1474 - HC - CustomsRelease of seized goods - main ground on which such release is sought is that the mandatory requirement of Section 110 read with 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 i.e. that a show cause notice should have been issued to the Petitioner within six months of such seizure had not been complied with - time limitation - HELD THAT - With the Petitioner not having been able to persuade this Court about the Respondents failure to serve him the SCN on or before 28th October 2013, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. This order however will not preclude the Petitioner from urging all the contentions available to him in accordance with law in the proceedings pursuant to the impugned SCN, except of course that it has not been served on him. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Release of seized goods under Customs Act, 1962 due to non-compliance with issuance of show cause notice within six months. 2. Seizure of high-end luxury wrist watches and other goods from various co-noticees. 3. Failure to serve show cause notice within the statutory period to a co-noticee. 4. Stay granted by Supreme Court on a judgment regarding seized goods and cash. 5. Refusal by High Court to release seized goods based on Supreme Court's stay order. 6. Interim order preventing adjudication pending hearing. 7. Filing of counter affidavits by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and Customs regarding service of show cause notice. 8. Acknowledgement of show cause notice receipt by co-noticee's wife. 9. Petitioner's request for release of 50% seized goods similar to Supreme Court's order. 10. Rejection of release request by High Court based on previous Division Bench order. 11. Dismissal of writ petition due to failure to prove non-service of show cause notice. 12. Permission for the Petitioner to raise contentions in subsequent proceedings. 13. Dismissal of writ petition and vacation of interim order. Analysis: 1. The Petitioner sought the release of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962, citing non-compliance with the issuance of a show cause notice within six months. The Petitioner relied on a previous court decision to support the claim. 2. The seizures involved high-end luxury wrist watches found in a car parked outside the Petitioner's residence, along with similar goods and cash seized from other co-noticees. Statements were recorded from all individuals under the Act. 3. A judgment was delivered by the Court in a related case, highlighting the failure to serve a show cause notice within the statutory period to one of the co-noticees. 4. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and Customs filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the judgment, leading to a stay on the Court's decision regarding the seized amount and watches. 5. The High Court refused to release the seized goods based on the Supreme Court's stay order, emphasizing the differences in powers between the two courts. 6. An interim order was issued by the High Court, preventing adjudication until the next hearing date in multiple related writ petitions. 7. Counter affidavits were filed by both DRI and Customs regarding the service of the show cause notice, with an acknowledgment of receipt by the Petitioner's wife attached to the Customs' affidavit. 8. Despite the receipt acknowledgment, the Petitioner did not file a rejoinder to dispute the document, indicating the notice was received at the Petitioner's address. 9. The Petitioner requested the Court to release 50% of the seized goods, similar to the Supreme Court's order, subject to filing an undertaking. 10. The Court rejected the release request based on a previous Division Bench order, emphasizing consistency in decisions. 11. The central issue of non-service of the show cause notice by the Respondents before the specified date was not proven by the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. 12. The Court allowed the Petitioner to raise contentions in future proceedings but noted the necessity of proper service of the notice. 13. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, concluding the legal proceedings.
|
