9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The issue involves the return of seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, where the petitioner argues that the show cause notice was served beyond the six-month period from the date of seizure, as per Section 124 of the Customs Act. Judgment Details: 1. The petitioner requested the return of seized goods, claiming that the show cause notice was served after six months from the date of seizure. The relevant dates were as follows: seizure on 23-4-2003, show cause notice dated 16-10-2003, and allegedly served on the petitioner on 30-10-2003. Section 110(2) of the Customs Act mandates the return of goods if no notice under Section 124 is given within six months of seizure. The court noted that the despatch of the notice within six months is sufficient compliance with the law, as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 2. The court analyzed the argument that the date of service of the notice should be the sole factor in calculating the six-month period. It rejected this interpretation, stating that it could lead to evasive tactics by individuals to avoid notice and claim return of goods. The court also clarified that Section 153 of the Customs Act does not specify a strict order of priority for serving notices. As the notice in this case was sent on 16-10-2003, the court found strict compliance with Section 110(a) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. This judgment highlights the importance of timely issuance of show cause notices under the Customs Act and clarifies the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions regarding the calculation of the six-month period for such notices.
|
