9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Violation of provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the confiscation of goods and currency; Proper notice to owner for confiscation of goods; Legal interpretation of "owner" under the Customs Act.
In this case, the Customs Officers intercepted a Maruti Van carrying silk fabrics of Chinese origin without proper documentation, leading to its seizure along with the goods. Subsequently, during a search at another premises, more contraband goods and cash were found, implicating several individuals and entities. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of goods, the van, and imposed penalties on various parties under the Customs Act, 1962. Regarding the appeal filed by the owner of the confiscated van, the issue centered on the lack of notice to the van owner as per Section 124 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that despite being the van owner, he did not receive a confiscation notice, which was essential under the law. The appellant relied on a Calcutta High Court judgment to support this contention, emphasizing the necessity of proper notice to the owner before confiscation. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the confiscation of the van was indeed in violation of Section 124 as the appellant, the van owner, was not served with a notice of confiscation. Citing legal precedents, including the Calcutta High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing notice to the rightful owner before confiscation. Additionally, the interpretation of "owner" under the Customs Act was clarified, aligning with previous legal interpretations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order confiscating the van and directed a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was instructed to ensure proper notice to the van owner, allowing for written representation and a fair hearing as mandated by Section 124 of the Customs Act. The decision was guided by legal principles and aimed at upholding procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, highlighting the significance of due process and proper notification to owners in confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment underscored the importance of legal compliance and procedural fairness in such cases, ensuring the protection of rights and adherence to statutory provisions.
|
