1978 (3) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the goods in suit.
2. Maintainability of the suit under the Sea Customs Act.
3. Validity and sufficiency of the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Reliefs entitled to the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Goods in Suit:
The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of 6 diamond rings and 21 watches seized by Customs authorities. Evidence presented includes oral testimony from Keshab Prosad Chamaria, who confirmed the goods were made over for inspection to the defendant No. 6. Inspection notes and other documents like Bills of Exchange and invoices were tendered as exhibits. The court found this evidence unchallenged and uncontradicted, establishing the plaintiff's ownership. The defendant No. 6's admission before Customs authorities and the presence of Arlington & Co. tags further supported this claim. The court concluded that the plaintiff has established ownership over the seized articles.

2. Maintainability of the Suit under the Sea Customs Act:
The defendants argued that the suit is not maintainable under the Sea Customs Act, as it provides a complete and self-sufficient procedure for dealing with such matters. However, the court held that the suit was maintainable because neither the Sea Customs Act nor the Income-tax Act could determine the title of the property. The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership, which could only be determined in a suit. The court noted that the question of ownership is relevant and must be resolved before any confiscation proceedings could continue.

3. Validity and Sufficiency of the Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The defendants contended that the suit was filed prematurely before the expiration of two months from the service of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff's solicitor provided evidence that notices were posted on May 14 and 15, 1957, and should have reached the defendants by May 17, 1957. The court found no evidence to the contrary and held that the defendants failed to provide records showing when the notices were received. Therefore, the court accepted the plaintiff's case and drew an adverse inference against the defendants for withholding evidence.

4. Reliefs Entitled to the Plaintiff:
The court declared the plaintiff the owner of the seized articles. However, it directed that the pending confiscation proceedings should be completed expeditiously. If the goods are found to have been legally imported, they must be returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit, including costs reserved from the contesting defendants in equal shares. The Joint Receivers are directed to return the seized articles to the custody of the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to complete the confiscation proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court issued a decree declaring the plaintiff the owner of the seized articles, subject to the outcome of the pending confiscation proceedings. The defendants are directed to return the goods to the plaintiff if found to be legally imported. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. The Joint Receivers are instructed to return the seized articles and the key to the defendants for the completion of the confiscation proceedings.