1973 (11) TMI 42 - SC - Customs

Whether the appellants have no locus standi to ask for release of the goods? Held that - There cannot be any question of violation of principles of natural justice or any lack of opportunity to the appellants to show cause in regard to the order dated 20 September, 1963 extending the time for giving the notice under Section 124 of the Act contemplated in Section 110 of the Act. The appellants themselves asked for release of the goods on depositing moneys and executing bonds representing the value of the goods released. The agreements in the present appeals establish that the parties on consideration of all the facts and circumstances waived notice for extending the time within six months of the seizure of the goods. The Excise Authorities are also right in their contention that the appellants have no locus standi to ask for release of the goods because the Bank was in possession of the goods as the pledgee and the Excise Authorities seized the goods from the possession of the Bank. The moneys deposited and the bonds executed by the appellants are really the substituted goods for the purpose of adjudication as to whether there can be any confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty. The parties agreed that the Excise Authorities would retain the securities for the purpose of adjudication proceedings in the event of failure of the appellants in the writ petitions filed by them. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the extension order dated 20 September 1963 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity to be heard before the extension order.
3. Impact of consent orders and special agreements on the appellants' entitlement to the release of goods and return of deposited amounts.
4. Locus standi of the appellants to ask for the release of goods seized from the Bank.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Extension Order Dated 20 September 1963:

The primary contention of the appellants was that the order dated 20 September 1963, extending the period for issuing a "show cause notice" under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, was illegal because it was not within six months of the seizure of the goods. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, where it was held that an extension order passed after the initial period of six months had lapsed was invalid. However, in the present case, the Court noted that the special agreements and consent orders between the parties during the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court altered the applicability of Section 110. Therefore, the extension order's legality was not questioned due to these agreements.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellants argued that the extension order was made without giving them an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court acknowledged that, as per the Malhotra case, the right to be heard before an extension is crucial. However, the Court found that the special agreements and consent orders between the parties effectively waived the appellants' right to contest the extension order. Consequently, there was no violation of natural justice in this context.

3. Impact of Consent Orders and Special Agreements:

The appellants had entered into several consent orders with the Excise Authorities, which allowed for the release of the seized goods upon depositing certain amounts and executing bonds. These agreements stipulated that the deposited amounts and bonds would be treated as the sale proceeds of the seized goods for adjudication purposes. The Supreme Court held that these agreements took the goods out of the purview of Section 110 of the Act. Therefore, the appellants' contention that they were entitled to the return of the deposited amounts was deemed unsound and unacceptable. The agreements established that the parties had waived the requirement for a notice of extension within six months of the seizure.

4. Locus Standi of the Appellants:

The Excise Authorities contended that the appellants had no locus standi to ask for the release of the goods because the Bank, as the pledgee, was in possession of the goods when they were seized. The Supreme Court agreed with this contention, stating that the appellants could not claim the release of goods seized from the Bank's possession.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the appeals failed on all grounds. The special agreements and consent orders between the parties effectively waived the appellants' rights to contest the extension order and negated any claims of violation of natural justice. Additionally, the appellants lacked the locus standi to seek the release of the goods. The Court emphasized that the deposited amounts and executed bonds represented the goods for adjudication purposes, and the Excise Authorities should proceed with the adjudication proceedings without further delay. The appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.