9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and competence of the Bench to hear the matter. 2. Validity of the proceedings for confiscation under Section 124 of the Customs Act and Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act when notice is not issued within the prescribed period under Section 110 of the Customs Act and Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act. 3. Relationship and interdependence between the proceedings under Section 110 and 124 of the Customs Act and Sections 66 and 79 of the Gold (Control) Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Competence of the Bench: At the commencement of her submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Bench to hear the matter. She argued that the Bench was not entitled to hear the submissions or pass orders, contending that the initial member, Shri Mandal, should have followed the Delhi High Court judgment in Shanti Lal Mehta v. Union of India and the Tribunal's decision in Vishwanath Pandey v. Collector of Customs. However, this submission was overruled as there was no reference in the order of the Bench dated 13-2-1986 about such a submission having been raised before the said Bench. Additionally, the submission that the Bench should have consisted of Shri M. Santhanam and D.C. Mandal was withdrawn by the learned counsel when it was pointed out that it contradicted Section 129C of the Customs Act. 2. Validity of the Proceedings for Confiscation: The primary contention was whether the appellant was entitled to the return of the gold seized due to the failure to issue a proper notice within six months from the date of seizure, as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra held that Section 124 does not lay down any period within which the notice has to be given, and the period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice. This principle was upheld by various High Courts, including the Madras High Court in Collector of Customs & Central Excise v. Amruthalakshmi, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Munilal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, and the Bombay High Court in M/s Mohan Lal Devdan Bhai v. H.P. Mondkar. These courts held that the proceedings for confiscation under Section 124 are independent of the seizure under Section 110, and the failure to issue a notice within the prescribed period does not invalidate the confiscation proceedings. 3. Relationship and Interdependence Between the Proceedings: The Tribunal considered whether the proceedings under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, and Sections 66 and 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, are independent or inter-dependent. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Charan Das Malhotra and various High Court decisions indicated that the two sets of proceedings are independent. The Tribunal also considered contrary views from other High Courts, such as the Gujarat High Court in A.M. Soni v. Union of India and the Bombay High Court in Dhiraj Pal Amrit Lal Mehta v. Union of India, which suggested that the failure to issue a notice within the prescribed period under Section 110 invalidates the confiscation proceedings. However, the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings under Section 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, and Sections 66 and 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, are independent and not inter-dependent. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings for confiscation under Section 124 of the Customs Act and Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act are valid even if the notice is issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act and Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act. The confiscation of the gold and imposition of personal penalty were confirmed. The papers were transferred to the Bench which heard the appeal for passing further appropriate orders as required under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act and Section 81D of the Gold (Control) Act.
|
