2019 (5) TMI 1475 - HC - Customs

Time limitation - Release of seized goods - studded gold jewellery - SCN was not served on each of the Petitioners within the mandatory period under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The Court is not at this point examining the allegations made in each of the petitions since the short question that arises is whether within a period of 6 months from the date of the seizure of the gold/jewellery, SCNs, as required by law, were served on each of the Petitioners. In each of the petitions the positive case of the Petitioners is that no such SCN was served on either of them within the mandatory period. This Court on 26th April 2019 directed that the original file related to issuance of show cause notice and connected documents shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing. Shri Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel informs the Court that the original file pertaining to both the matters is available with him. The original file does not contain the original of either of the acknowledgements which have been enclosed with the counter-affidavit of the Respondents. Since there is a failure as on date to produce any convincing proof of the Petitioners having been served with the SCN, within the time stipulated the Court directs the release to Shri Ram Chandra of the 2 gold bars of 2000 grams seized from him (as per the appraisement report which is at Annexure A and part of the relied upon documents No.3 mentioned in the SCN dated 19th June 2018). Petition disposed off. List on 30th October 2019.

Summary

Issues:
Release of seized diamond studded gold jewellery based on non-service of show cause notice (SCN) within the mandatory period under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with two petitions where the Petitioners sought the release of seized diamond studded gold jewellery, arguing that the show cause notice (SCN) was not served within the required period. The facts of both cases were similar, involving the detention and seizure of gold from one individual carrying it from Mumbai to Delhi and another individual connected to the first. The core issue was whether SCNs were served on the Petitioners within six months of the seizure, as mandated by law.

In response to the petitions, a counter-affidavit was filed by an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, asserting that SCNs were issued and served on the Petitioners within the stipulated timeframe. The counter-affidavit included details of the SCNs dated 19th June 2018 and acknowledgments of receipt by the Petitioners. However, the Petitioners filed rejoinders disputing the service of SCNs, alleging that the documents provided were manipulated or forged, with discrepancies in dates and signatures. The original file related to the issuance of the SCN and connected documents were ordered to be produced before the Court.

The Court noted the unavailability of original acknowledgments in the file and directed the release of the seized goods to the Petitioners due to the failure to provide convincing proof of service of SCNs within the specified time. The judgment ordered the release of gold bars to one Petitioner and gold jewellery to another, subject to the filing of separate affidavits undertaking to produce gold of the same quantity and purity as directed by the Court. The Court also instructed the Respondents to provide an affidavit on the outcome of the inquiry into the missing documents before the next hearing date, keeping the adjudication orders in abeyance until then.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural aspect of serving SCNs within the statutory period and emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of service to ensure fair adjudication in customs-related matters.