9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of show-cause notices issued under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. 2. Interpretation of "notice has been given" within the context of the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. 3. Right to return of seized goods if notice is not given within six months. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Show-Cause Notices: The petitioner, a certified goldsmith, had his premises searched on May 7, 1969, resulting in the seizure of gold and gold ornaments. He received two show-cause notices on November 8, 1969, one under the Customs Act and another under the Gold Control Act. The petitioner challenged these notices, arguing that they were issued beyond the six-month statutory period from the date of seizure, thus invalidating any further proceedings under Section 110 of the Customs Act and Section 79 of the Gold Control Act. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the return of the seized goods. 2. Interpretation of "Notice Has Been Given": The core issue was the interpretation of "notice has been given" as mentioned in the relevant sections of both Acts. According to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. Similarly, Section 79 of the Gold Control Act mandates the return of goods if no notice is given within six months. The court examined whether the notice is considered given when it is issued by the officer or when it reaches the concerned person. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Narasimhiah v. Singri Gowda, which clarified that "giving" a notice is not complete unless it reaches the intended recipient. This principle was applied to the present case, determining that the objective of the notice is to inform the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty and to provide an opportunity for representation. 3. Right to Return of Seized Goods: The court concluded that if the notice is not received within six months from the date of seizure, the individual is entitled to the return of the seized goods. The Supreme Court's ruling in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra was cited, affirming that the right to restoration of seized goods is a civil right that vests after six months unless an extension is granted with the individual's opportunity to be heard. In this case, the goods were seized on May 7, 1969, and the six-month period expired on November 6, 1969. The notices were posted on November 5, 1969, but received by the petitioner on November 8, 1969. Therefore, the court held that the notices were not given within the required period, and the petitioner's right to the return of the seized goods vested on November 7, 1969. Conclusion: The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the seized goods to the petitioner, as the notices were not given within the statutory six-month period. The court did not strike down the notices but emphasized that the petitioner was entitled to the return of the goods due to the lapse in the statutory timeframe. The application was allowed, and the rule was made absolute, with costs awarded to the petitioner. The court also clarified that the direction would not operate if the goods were required under any other law.
|
