2024 (4) TMI 340 - HC - Customs

Seeking release/return of gold bangle to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 110(2) read with Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 - SCN issued after mandatory period - HELD THAT - In the instant case it is not disputed that the seizure was made on 04.04.2023 which meant that the notice should have been issued prior to 03.10.2023 which however was not the case as the show cause notice was sent by speed post on 05.10.2023 after the mandatory period as per Section 110(2) had lapsed. The proviso allowing for extension of time was also not resorted to by the respondents. Section 124 as can be seen from above prohibits the confiscation of any goods or imposing any penalty unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice and an opportunity of making a representation and also of being heard. The issuance of a show cause on time therefore being fundamental in such matters and the same having not been complied with by the respondents is thus hit by Section 110(2) of the Act. The relevance of the judgment PURUSHOTTAM JAJODIA AMIT KUMAR KM. UDYOG VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AND ANOTHER 2014 (8) TMI 771 - DELHI HIGH COURT cited by the petitioner is noted as it essentially covers the case with regard to the sanctity of the 6(six) month period of show cause and as such no further discussion is required on the same. The respondents are directed to release the gold bangle seized from the petitioner forthwith - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner seeks the release of a gold bangle seized under the Customs Act while traveling from Imphal to Delhi, invoking Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Judgment Details:

1. The petitioner requests the release of the gold bangle under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing a delay in receiving the show cause notice beyond the stipulated six-month period from the date of seizure.

2. The petitioner's counsel argues that the delayed receipt of the show cause notice violates Section 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, relying on a Delhi High Court judgment and a subsequent Supreme Court order affirming the time-bound nature of such notices.

3. The respondent explains the delay in issuing the show cause notice was due to civil unrest in Imphal, preventing timely dispatch, and cites legal precedents to support the argument that the validity of the notice is not contingent upon the time limit for returning seized goods.

4. The Court reviews the relevant sections of the Customs Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of issuing notices within the prescribed time frame under Sections 110(2) and 124 to prevent confiscation or penalties.

5. The Court observes that the show cause notice was dispatched from Shillong, not Imphal, undermining the respondent's justification for the delay, and criticizes the respondent's handling of the case as misleading and careless.

6. Referring to the cited judgment, the Court affirms the importance of adhering to the six-month period for issuing show cause notices, finding the delay in this case inexcusable despite the cited legal precedents.

7. Consequently, the Court allows the writ petition, directing the immediate release of the gold bangle to the petitioner, and concludes the case without imposing any costs on either party.