2020 (6) TMI 560 - HC - Customs

Seizure of Gold - provisional release of goods - Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - The facts with regard to seizure of the gold the extension of time and its communication to the petitioner much less issuance of the ordinance are not in dispute. Sub-Section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act and proviso added later on enables the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to give further period of six months by informing the person after recording the reasons which, in the instant case has already been done. However, the extension would not come into play in case the goods are provisionally released under Section 110(a). The equity can be struck by issuing directions to the respondent for deciding the request submitted vide Ext.P5 for provisional release of the goods in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure of gold and cash under Customs Act 1962 - Delay in initiation of adjudication proceedings - Extension of time due to Covid-19 lockdown - Application for provisional release of goods pending.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a goldsmith, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the seizure of 2,253 grams of gold and ?27 lakhs in cash on 16.10.2019 by Customs Officers. The petitioner claimed to have a valid license and availed loans for business expansion. The petitioner argued that as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962, goods seized should be returned if no notice is given for adjudication within six months. An application for provisional release of gold was submitted on 24.10.2019, but no action was taken despite the lapse of the six-month period.

The Customs authority contended that due to the Covid-19 lockdown, the period for initiating adjudication proceedings was extended from 16.04.2020 to 30.06.2020, further extended to 15.10.2020. The authority acknowledged the application for provisional release and agreed to adhere to any direction from the court. The court noted the extension of time granted by the Commissioner but emphasized that the extension does not apply if goods are provisionally released under Section 110(a). The court found that the application for provisional release can be decided independently of the adjudication proceedings under Section 124.

After considering the arguments and documents, the court decided to issue directions to the respondent to decide on the request for provisional release of goods submitted by the petitioner within one month from the date of the judgment. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.