1978 (1) TMI 82 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of goods under the Customs Act.
2. Compliance with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act regarding the issuance of notice within six months.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of Goods under the Customs Act:
The petitioner, who carries on the business of selling silver Thakas and old silver coins, was intercepted by the Inspector of Customs (Respondent No. 2) at Katihar railway station, resulting in the seizure of the goods on suspicion of smuggling from Nepal. The petitioner denied the smuggling allegation and applied for the release of the goods, claiming that the seizure was illegal. However, the court noted that this matter was pending in an adjudication proceeding and thus did not address the legality of the seizure itself.

2. Compliance with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act Regarding the Issuance of Notice within Six Months:
Section 110(2) of the Customs Act mandates that if no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The petitioner argued that no such notice was issued within the prescribed period, thus entitling him to the return of the goods. However, the respondents countered that a show cause notice was issued on 22-10-1974, within the six-month period, and was sent by registered post to the address provided by the petitioner. The notice was returned as "Not known," and subsequently, a copy was displayed on the Notice Board of the Customs office on 30-10-1974, in compliance with Section 153(b) of the Customs Act.

3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs was invalid because the value of the seized goods exceeded Rs. 10,000/-, and therefore, the Assistant Collector was not the competent authority to adjudicate the matter. The notice was signed by a Superintendent of Customs, an officer lower in rank than the Assistant Collector. The respondents argued that the valuation provided by the petitioner was approximate and that the Assistant Collector was still competent to issue the notice. They also cited departmental instructions and a notification empowering the Assistant Collector to issue such notices.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and previous judgments, concluding that the notice issued by the Assistant Collector was valid. The court noted that Section 124(a) does not specify that the notice must be issued by the adjudicating authority. The court agreed with the observation that the notice serves as an intimation of the initiation of proceedings and does not involve any judicial determination. Thus, the notice issued met the statutory requirements of Section 110(2).

Conclusion:
The court held that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was legal and valid under Section 110(2) read with Section 124(a) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the goods seized from the petitioner could not be ordered to be released. The application was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.