9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of serving notice to the owner of the vehicle under Section 124 of the Customs Act. 2. Entitlement of the petitioner to the return of the seized vehicle under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Necessity of Serving Notice to the Owner of the Vehicle under Section 124 of the Customs Act: The petitioner contended that the Customs Department failed to serve a notice as required by Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, within six months of the vehicle's seizure. The petitioner argued that since the registration certificate (Annexure-1) was seized along with the vehicle, the respondents could easily ascertain the owner's identity and should have issued the notice to the owner. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that natural justice required the owner to be notified, as the owner would be affected by the vehicle's confiscation. The respondents argued that the law does not mandate serving notice to the owner if the notice is served on the person from whose possession the vehicle was seized, in this case, the driver. They contended that service of notice on the driver suffices for legal proceedings under Section 124 of the Act. The court examined Section 124 of the Customs Act, which stipulates that no confiscation order shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice. The court noted that the section uses the conjunction "or," implying that notice to either the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized is legally sufficient. However, the court reasoned that if the owner's identity is known, as in this case where the registration certificate was seized, it is obligatory to issue notice to the owner to allow them to prove their lack of knowledge or connivance in the smuggling activities and to exercise their options under Section 115(2) of the Act. The court referenced the Kerala High Court's decision in O.P. No. 2108 of 1971, which held that notice to the owner is necessary under similar provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The court concluded that in this case, the respondents should have issued notice to the owner (the petitioner) since the registration certificate was seized. 2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the Return of the Seized Vehicle under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act: The petitioner sought the return of the seized vehicle, arguing that no notice was served on him within six months as required by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The respondents contended that Section 110(2) only entitles the return of goods to the person from whose possession they were seized, which in this case was the driver, not the petitioner. The court examined Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which mandates the return of seized goods if no notice is given within six months to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. The court noted that the petitioner was not the person from whose possession the vehicle was seized, and therefore, the petitioner could not claim the vehicle's return under this provision. The court also considered the decisions cited by the respondents, which held that the confiscation proceedings under Section 124 are independent of the seizure provisions under Section 110, and failure to give notice within six months does not invalidate the confiscation proceedings. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the vehicle under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act since the vehicle was not seized from his possession. However, the court directed the respondents to conclude the confiscation proceedings expeditiously, considering the representations filed by the petitioner, even though they were filed belatedly. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. Separate Judgments: A.N. Chaturvedi, J. concurred with the judgment delivered by Dharmpal Sinha, J.
|
