1982 (8) TMI 51 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of a Mercedez Benz car and Hashish by Customs authorities.
2. Petition seeking mandamus for the return of the car.
3. Legal validity of the notice issued for confiscation after six months of seizure.
4. Interpretation of Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Ownership claim over the seized car.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Customs authorities seized a Mercedez Benz car and Hashish in August 1979, driven by an individual who admitted to using the car for smuggling. A criminal complaint was filed, and the individual was sentenced to imprisonment. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the car, sought its return, alleging lack of response from the Collector of Customs.

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking mandamus for the return of the car, contending that he is the rightful owner and had permitted the individual to use the car. A show cause notice was later issued to the petitioner for the confiscated Hashish, valued at Rs. 1,50,000, under Sections 111 and 115 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The main argument presented by the petitioner's counsel was that the notice issued to the petitioner after six months of seizure was invalid, and thus, the proceedings for confiscation should be quashed, and the car returned. However, the court disagreed, citing the provisions of Sections 110 and 124 of the Act.

4. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the two sections are independent. It was clarified that the absence of a notice within six months to the petitioner did not affect the legality of the notice issued within the stipulated time to the person from whom the car was seized. The court highlighted that the failure to give notice under Section 110 did not impact the authority to proceed with confiscation proceedings.

5. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner must participate in the proceedings to establish ownership and innocence. The petitioner agreed to cooperate and file a reply to the notice within 15 days. The court directed the authorities to expedite the proceedings and conclude the matter within three months, considering the age of the case. The judgment was delivered on 11-8-1982, with reasons for dismissal provided later.