1975 (2) TMI 30 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Customs Act, 1962, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Export Control Order, 1958.
2. Legality of the seizure and confiscation of 25 packages of mica under Section 110(2) and Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the extension of the six-month period for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Entitlement to the return of the seized mica.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Customs Act, 1962, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Export Control Order, 1958:
The petitioner sought a declaration that these provisions were ultra vires the Constitution. However, this issue was not pressed at the time of the hearing, as the petitioner obtained only a limited rule focusing on the violation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Legality of the Seizure and Confiscation of 25 Packages of Mica:
The petitioner argued that the seizure of the mica was arbitrary and illegal, asserting that the mica was not intended for smuggling and was stored to avoid demurrage charges. The Customs Officer seized the mica on October 27, 1969, and the Assistant Collector ordered its confiscation on August 16, 1971, under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a penalty imposed under Section 114. The appellate authority upheld this order.

3. Validity of the Extension of the Six-Month Period for Issuing a Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner contended that the extension of the six-month period for issuing a show-cause notice was not done in accordance with law, as no notice was given to the petitioner or his representative. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Collector, Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, which held that the power to extend the period is quasi-judicial and requires an opportunity for the concerned person to show cause. Since no such notice was issued, the extension granted on April 18, 1970, was deemed invalid.

4. Entitlement to the Return of the Seized Mica:
The petitioner argued that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the authorities were bound to return the seized mica after the six-month period expired on April 26, 1970. However, the court noted that while the continued seizure after this period was illegal, the notice issued under Section 124(a) was valid. The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Charan Das Malhotra, noting that the notice in that case was quashed for being vague, whereas no such issue was raised here. The court concluded that the confiscation under Section 113 and the penalty under Section 114 were legal based on the findings that the mica was attempted to be exported to Nepal contrary to prohibitions. Consequently, the mica now vested in the Central Government under Section 126, and no direction for its return could be issued.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed, with the court holding that the extension of the six-month period was invalid, but the confiscation and penalty were legal. The seized mica, now vested in the Central Government, could not be returned to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.