2013 (9) TMI 731 - HC - Customs

Sale / disposal of goods for non clearance - Restoration and Restitution of Imported Revolver Held that - The writ petition cannot be allowed in view of the extraordinary delay and latches in approaching the Court -The revolver in question was sold under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Custom authorities in their letter dated 4th February, 1994 had rightly drawn attention of the petitioner of the detention receipt to the effect that if the goods are not cleared within two months of the detention or any period extended by the competent authority, action to dispose of goods under relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 would be initiated . Section 48 of the Customs Act was clearly applicable as the imported item, i.e. the revolver, was an arm defined under the Arms Act, 1959 - Even with the writ petition we note that the petitioner had not filed any document or proof to show that the earlier revolver held/owned by him was of Indian make and origin Decided against Petitioner.

Issues:
1. Delay and latches in approaching the Court for restoration of imported revolver.
2. Applicability of Baggage Rules and Customs Act in the case.
3. Lack of show cause notice before the sale of the revolver.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay and Latches
The petitioner sought restoration of a revolver imported in 1984, which was detained in 1985 and subsequently sold in 1986. The High Court noted the significant delay of over 10 years in filing the writ petition after the sale of the revolver. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the sale until 1994, but the Court found this explanation inadequate due to the long delay. The Court emphasized that the petition could not be allowed due to the extraordinary delay and latches in approaching the Court, which also impacted the merits of the case.

Issue 2: Applicability of Baggage Rules and Customs Act
The detention certificate highlighted that the petitioner had acquired a revolver in 1979, sold in 1984, which affected the import of the revolver in question under the Baggage Rules. The Rules allowed import of firearms as part of baggage under specific conditions, including a restriction on importing a foreign-made arm of the same category within the last 10 years. The Court observed that the detention receipt clearly outlined the reasons for detention, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the regulations. Despite various correspondences and explanations, the petitioner failed to provide proof of the earlier revolver's Indian origin, leading to the sale of the imported revolver under Section 48 of the Customs Act.

Issue 3: Lack of Show Cause Notice
The petitioner argued the absence of a show cause notice before the sale of the revolver. However, the Court referenced Section 48 of the Customs Act, under which the revolver was sold. The authorities had rightly cited Instruction No.6 of the detention receipt, indicating the initiation of disposal action if goods were not cleared within a specified period. The Court clarified that the sale was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, considering the nature of the imported item as an arm under the Arms Act. Despite the writ petition, the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the earlier revolver's Indian origin, further weakening the case.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the significant delay in approaching the Court, the petitioner's failure to meet the requirements of the Baggage Rules, and the lawful sale of the revolver under the Customs Act. The Court found no merit in the petition, leading to its dismissal without any costs.

← Previous Next →