9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to imposition of penalty and order of confiscation in respect of 41 watches out of 246 watches seized. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the penalty and confiscation order related to 41 watches out of 246 seized watches. The Customs authorities sealed the petitioner's locker in Bombay and later found 246 wrist watches in it, seizing them under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice issued more than six months after the seizure was invalid under Section 110(2) of the Act, thus the watches should be released. The petitioner claimed lawful acquisition of the watches and contended they were not smuggled. 3. The Additional Collector of Customs held the watches were smuggled, ordering the confiscation of all seized watches and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. The Central Board of Excise and Customs partially allowed the petitioner's appeal, releasing 205 watches but upholding confiscation of 41 watches and reducing the penalty to Rs. 2,500. 4. The petitioner's revision application before the Government of India was dismissed, leading to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the confiscation of 41 watches and the penalty imposition. 5. The petitioner argued that Section 110(2) mandated the return of goods due to delayed show cause notice issuance, thus no proceedings under Section 124 could take place. However, the court cited precedents to reject this argument, emphasizing the independence of Sections 110 and 124 in the confiscation process. 6. The court also dismissed the petitioner's contention that the watches could not be confiscated if majority were validly imported, noting the lack of proof of lawful acquisition at the time of seizure. The court upheld the seizure as reasonable, given the circumstances. 7. No other contentions were raised, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with costs, based on the reasoning provided in the judgment.
|
