2002 (11) TMI 123 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice dated 2nd December 1994.
2. Requirement of the Director General (ASI) report under Section 24 of the Antiquities Act as a pre-requisite for issuing a show cause notice.
3. Impact of quashing the criminal complaint on the confiscation proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Dated 2nd December 1994:
The petitioners challenged the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Customs under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, questioning why the seized goods should not be confiscated and a personal penalty imposed. The petitioners argued that the notice was based on surmises and conjectures and lacked a legal basis. They contended that the notice could not be issued until it was established that the seized goods were antiquities under the Antiquities Act. However, the court found that the Collector of Customs had sufficient material to issue the show cause notice. The preliminary report from the Superintending Archaeologist dated 23rd June 1994 indicated that the seized coins were of significant numismatic value and appeared to be antiquities. The court held that the show cause notice was valid and not based on surmises or conjectures.

2. Requirement of the Director General (ASI) Report Under Section 24 of the Antiquities Act as a Pre-requisite for Issuing a Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners argued that the report of the Director General (ASI) certifying the coins as antiquities under Section 24 of the Antiquities Act was a pre-requisite for issuing the show cause notice. They contended that the seizure of the coins was effected on 21st June 1994, and the show cause notice was issued on 2nd December 1994, before receiving the Director General's report. The court disagreed, stating that no provision required the report of the Director General (ASI) as a pre-requisite for issuing a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized that the Collector of Customs only needed a bona fide belief based on relevant material to issue the notice. The preliminary report from the Superintending Archaeologist provided sufficient material to hold a prima facie view that the coins were antiquities.

3. Impact of Quashing the Criminal Complaint on the Confiscation Proceedings:
The petitioners contended that since the criminal complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act was quashed by the court on 4th March 1996, the confiscation proceedings should not lie. They argued that the final report of the Director General (ASI) was not received before launching the prosecution, leading to the quashing of the complaint. The court rejected this argument, stating that criminal proceedings are independent and do not affect the adjudication proceedings for confiscation. The court clarified that the quashing of the prosecution had no bearing on the adjudication proceedings. The court noted that the show cause notice was issued on 2nd December 1994, much before the quashing of the prosecution, and the confiscation proceedings were valid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Customs. The court found that the Collector had sufficient material to issue the notice and that the report of the Director General (ASI) was not a pre-requisite for issuing the show cause notice. The court also held that the quashing of the criminal complaint did not affect the confiscation proceedings. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.