1981 (3) TMI 81 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of the petitioner's goods.
2. Validity of the show cause notice.
3. Proceedings initiated by the complaint.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Seizure of the Petitioner's Goods:
The petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Palam Airport, New Delhi, from Singapore via Bangkok on May 12, 1969. He intended to travel onward to Kathmandu, Nepal, and requested the Customs Officer to keep his baggage in bonded custody. Despite his request, the Customs Officer insisted on inspecting the baggage and subsequently seized the goods, making a `panchnama` dated May 13, 1969. The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and beyond the Customs Officer's jurisdiction as the goods were not intended to be imported into India but were meant for Kathmandu. The court noted that the definition of "import" u/s 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, implies bringing goods into India for use, enjoyment, consumption, sale, or distribution. The court referenced previous judgments, including Union of India v. Khalil Kecherim and K.R. Ahmed Shah v. Additional Collector of Customs, which clarified that goods are not considered imported if they are intended to be taken out of the country without crossing the customs barrier.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice dated May 13, 1969, stated that the seized goods were liable to confiscation u/s 111(d) and 111(1) of the Customs Act for being imported without the necessary import license or customs clearance permit. The petitioner contended that he had made a declaration and requested for bonding the goods, which was ignored by the Customs Officer. The court observed that the original records, including the Baggage Declaration Form and the petitioner's statement, were missing, which led to an adverse inference against the respondents. The court concluded that no prima facie case of smuggling was made out against the petitioner.

3. Proceedings Initiated by the Complaint:
The petitioner was detained and taken to the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on May 13, 1969, and was later granted bail on May 21, 1969. The court noted that the petitioner had approached the court at the stage of the show cause notice, and there was no determination of facts by the customs authorities. The court found that the petitioner's request for bonding the goods was reasonable and consistent with normal practices at international airports. The court quashed the show cause notice and the prosecution, directing that the seized goods be handed over to the petitioner for export out of the country.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned show cause notice and prosecution were quashed. The seized goods were to be handed over to the petitioner for export, with no orders as to costs.