2001 (2) TMI 146 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Dy. Collector, Appellate Collector, and CEGAT regarding confiscation of contraband gold based on the timeline of seizure and notice issuance.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by various authorities regarding the confiscation of contraband gold. The primary contention was that since the seizure was made by the police on a specific date, and the information was conveyed to the Customs Department later, the notice for proposed confiscation was issued beyond the permissible timeline. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision to support this argument.

2. The court examined the facts of the case where the petitioner was found in possession of contraband gold by the police, which was later handed over to the Customs Department for proceedings under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. The order of seizure was made under the Customs Act after the gold was transferred to the Customs Authorities. The notice for showing cause against confiscation was issued within six months of the seizure order.

3. The judges observed that the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioner was not directly applicable to the circumstances of this case. They emphasized that the order of seizure under the Customs Act was made when the gold was handed over to the Customs Authorities, and the notice for confiscation was issued within the prescribed timeline.

4. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and concluded that the notice issued to the petitioner was within the statutory period from the date of the seizure order. They highlighted that the period for issuing notice for confiscation starts from the date of the seizure order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, and in this case, the notice was issued in compliance with the legal requirements.

5. Based on the above analysis, the court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no factual basis to support the petitioner's argument regarding the timeline of seizure and notice issuance. The petition was rejected, and no costs were awarded in this matter.