2024 (8) TMI 1288 - HC - Customs

Seeking for Release / Return / Reexport of gold to the Petitioner - service of SCN - HELD THAT - It is manifest that under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act a notice under Clause (a) of Section 124 has to be issued to the owner of the goods or other person concerned within six months of the seizure of the goods failing which such goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Section 153 of the Act prescribes the modes of service of such notice. The methods indicated in Section 153(1) are alternative methods anyone of which could be attracted in the first instance. Petitioner made a failed attempt to show that she did not receive any e-mail dated 04.07.2023 by placing on record the screen-shot of the inbox taken from the mobile phone. However the same cannot be relied for the reason that as per certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner such digital record was taken out from the computer and not from the mobile phone. The screen-shot of inbox produced by the petitioner is therefore not a trustworthy document and cannot be relied upon. The gold bars were admittedly seized on 21.01.2023 while the SCN was served through e-mail to the petitioner on 04.07.2023. The SCN was served within a period of six months as provided under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act 1962 and therefore that being so petitioner is not entitled to the release of gold bars at this stage. There are no merit in the instant writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking release of gold bars seized by Customs Officers. Dispute over service of Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a foreign national from Moscow, purchased gold bars in Russia and brought them to India for making jewelry. The Customs Officers seized the gold bars near the green channel without issuing an SCN. The petitioner later sent letters to the Commissioner of Customs requesting the return of her gold bars. The Revenue claimed to have issued an SCN on time, but the petitioner disputed receiving it.

The petitioner argued that the SCN was not served properly as per Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Revenue contended that the SCN was validly served via email. The court examined the legal framework under Sections 110(2), 124, and 153 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the SCN must be issued within six months of seizure, failing which the goods should be returned to the owner.

The court found that the initial attempts to serve the SCN were invalid, as the petitioner was a foreign national not residing in India. However, the SCN was later sent to the petitioner's correct email address. The court clarified that the e-mail Policy of the Government of India does not override statutory law, and using a non-government email service for sending the SCN does not invalidate the service.

The petitioner tried to prove non-receipt of the email, but the court rejected the evidence as unreliable. Since the SCN was served within six months of seizure, the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to the release of the gold bars at that stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.