1988 (5) TMI 40 - SC - Customs

Whether the notice dated 4th May 1974 issued under Section 124(a) of the Act was issued beyond the period of six months of the seizure of goods made on 12-5-1973 and as such the entire proceedings were invalid for this reason? Held that - the order was passed not in violation of the principles of justice. It must be reiterated whether a notice was given or not within a stipulated time for extension as contemplated under Section 110(2) is a question of fact. It is also true that the onus that the order was passed without notice was on the person who assets it to be so and this is a question of facts. There was an assertion to this effect in the collector s order the assertion remained uncontroverted by any specific evidence and also by failure to urge this point. In that view of the matter the inference drawn by the High Court that such notice was given as contemplated under Section 110(2) in our opinion was not unwarranted. As the High Court noted that the value of the watches was mentioned as one of the particulars in the show cause notice given to the petitioner and this value was not refuted by the petitioner in his reply. The petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity at any stage to oppose the extention of time or to refute the allegations made in the show cause notice given thereafter.This provision had been substituted by the Act 36 of 1973 and would be applicable in the instant case. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof of trust on him by the aforesaid section. In the present case the penalty was not heavy and the High Court was right. High Court was right in not entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order directing confiscation of wrist watches under the Customs Act.
2. Extension of time for issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act.
3. Determination of the value of the seized watches for penalty calculation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation of wrist watches under the Customs Act, which were seized from his possession. The High Court noted the seizure details and the petitioner's failure to refute the allegations. The Collector's order, upheld on appeal and revision, was found to be valid based on the facts presented.

2. The issue of extension of time for the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act was raised. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed period and without proper opportunity. The High Court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments to determine that the extension was valid as the petitioner failed to raise objections at earlier stages, indicating sufficient opportunity was given.

3. The determination of the value of the seized watches for penalty calculation was challenged as arbitrary. The High Court found that the value was mentioned in the show cause notice and not refuted by the petitioner. The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Act was on the petitioner, which he failed to discharge. The High Court also considered the delay in penalty payment by the petitioner as a factor in determining the penalty amount, which was found not to be excessive or arbitrary based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision not to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, declining to interfere under Article 136. The special leave petition was rejected, affirming the validity of the orders related to the confiscation of wrist watches and penalty imposition.