1994 (7) TMI 90 - SC - Customs

Whether the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 would be attracted in a case where the retention of the goods has become illegal under Section 110(2) of the Act because no notice as required under the said provision was served within the statutory period? Held that - When the goods are seized under Section 110(1) of the Act that amounts to seizure of the goods under the Act and one of the conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 123 of the Act are satisfied by the mere factum of seizure. The effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 110(2) would only be that the seized goods are returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. It would not render the initial seizure of the goods illegal. We, therefore, hold that the seizure of the goods under Section 110(1) by itself is sufficient to comply with the requisite condition under Section 123 of the Act. What happens to the goods thereafter is of no consequence. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of notice under Section 110(2) and its impact on confiscation proceedings.
3. Application of Section 123 in determining burden of proof for smuggled goods.

Analysis:

1. The appeal in this case before the Supreme Court centered around the interpretation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The primary question was whether the provisions of Section 123 would be attracted in a scenario where the retention of goods had become illegal due to non-compliance with the notice requirement under Section 110(2) of the Act. The Court delved into the specifics of the case where the appellant's goods were seized by Customs authorities and subsequent confiscation proceedings were initiated.

2. The appellant contended that the notice served under Section 110(2) was invalid as it was issued after the statutory period of six months, rendering the retention of goods illegal. The High Court, relying on precedent, acknowledged the invalidity of the notice but upheld the confiscation order. The Court emphasized the distinction between seizure under Section 110 and confiscation under Section 124, stating that the former's non-compliance does not affect the validity of the notice. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision in this regard.

3. The Court further examined the application of Section 123, which shifts the burden of proof for smuggled goods. It was established that the conditions for invoking Section 123 were met in this case, as the goods were seized under the Act in the reasonable belief of being smuggled. The Court dismissed the appellant's argument that non-compliance with Section 110(2) negated the applicability of Section 123, clarifying that the initial seizure of goods under Section 110(1) sufficed to fulfill the conditions for burden of proof under Section 123.

4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts and ordering the appellant to bear the costs. The Court affirmed the legality of the confiscation order despite the invalid notice under Section 110(2) and reiterated the significance of the distinction between seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act.

This judgment provides clarity on the interplay between various sections of the Customs Act, particularly regarding the validity of notices, the process of confiscation, and the burden of proof for smuggled goods under Section 123.