2016 (12) TMI 523 - HC - Customs

Release of detained goods - gold kara (bracelet) - gold kara (bracelet) was his ancestral jewellery and was owned by him even before leaving for Dubai - Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - It is only on appraisal of the gold kara (bracelet) that the authorities would be in a position to take a decision whether to seize the goods or not and it is only thereafter that the limitation, as prescribed by sub-Section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act, would be triggered. Since the petitioner has not presented himself for appraisal, the seizure has not taken place and, accordingly, there is no question of issuance of any notice under Section 124(a) of the Act - Consequently, the gold kara (bracelet), seized from the petitioner and detained by the respondents, is liable to be returned to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to unconditionally release the gold kara (bracelet), seized by the respondents under the Detention Receipt dated 11.02.2015, to the petitioner within two weeks from today, on the petitioner presenting a certified copy of this order before the Superintendent of the Warehouse where the gold kara (bracelet) is stored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold kara (bracelet) by Custom Officers upon arrival from Dubai.
2. Petitioner's claim of ownership and ancestral jewelry status of the gold kara.
3. Interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding release of seized goods.
4. Dispute between detention and seizure of goods.
5. Application of legal precedent in Mohd. Salman Khan vs. Union of India case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a mandamus for the release of a gold kara (bracelet) seized upon arrival from Dubai. The detention memo was issued on 11.02.2015, alleging importation from Dubai.
2. Petitioner claimed ownership of the gold kara as ancestral jewelry, seeking release based on Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the absence of a show cause notice under Section 124(a).
3. The respondents argued that the gold kara was detained for appraisal and clearance, not seized, hence Section 110(2) did not apply. They contended that the petitioner's non-cooperation hindered appraisal, justifying the continued detention.
4. The judgment referenced the case of Mohd. Salman Khan, emphasizing the time limit for determining confiscation and issuing show cause notices, highlighting the necessity to distinguish between detention and seizure of goods.
5. The court held that the absence of a show cause notice for nearly two years mandated the release of the gold kara to the petitioner, directing its unconditional release within two weeks while reserving the respondents' right to take lawful actions subsequently.