1993 (9) TMI 122 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold items under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Delay in disposal of appeal.
3. Allegations of intentional evasion of receipt of registered notice.
4. Compliance with Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 for service of order.
5. Validity of notice sent by registered post.
6. Petitioner's request to redeem gold ornaments on payment of fine.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's father, a licensed gold dealer, had certain gold items confiscated under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioner, conducting the business, received Ext. P-1 order confiscating the seized gold items with an option to redeem the gold ornaments on payment of a fine of Rs. 5000 within three months.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal, alleging an 8-year delay in disposal. Despite expressing readiness to pay the fine, the appeal was rejected via Ext. P-6 order. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of the registered notice informing him of the appeal's rejection, hindering his ability to pay the fine within the stipulated period.

3. The respondent argued that a registered notice was sent to the petitioner, but he intentionally evaded receipt. The contention was that the petitioner should have paid the fine within three months of Ext. P-6 order, and his alleged evasion precluded him from claiming readiness to redeem the gold ornaments.

4. The compliance with Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 for service of orders was crucial. The provision mandates service through registered post or affixing on the customs house notice board. The respondents contended that displaying Ext. P-6 order on the notice board sufficed, but the petitioner disputed this interpretation.

5. The notice sent by registered post was analyzed, showing no mistake in the address. However, the petitioner's non-receipt was attributed to an "not known" endorsement, raising doubts about the adequacy of service. The petitioner's argument that he only knew of Ext. P-6 order through a different communication was considered valid.

6. Given the lack of compliance with Section 153 and uncertainties regarding notice delivery, the petitioner's request to redeem the gold ornaments on payment of the fine was upheld. The court directed the respondents to allow redemption upon payment of the specified amount, thereby granting relief to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the original petition, permitting the petitioner to redeem the confiscated gold ornaments upon payment of the redemption fine. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper service of orders and upheld the petitioner's claim based on the lack of notification and compliance with legal procedures.