2023 (9) TMI 244 - HC - Customs

Return of goods seized - Prescribed / stipulated period has already over - Seeking direction to respondents 1 2 to return the petitioner s mobile phones within a time period fixed by this Court - HELD THAT - A reading of provisions of Section 110 of CA, undoubtedly establishes that the seized goods have to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized within six months from the date of seizure. True, the proviso confers power on the Principal Commissioner, to extend the period of six months by a further period of six months. Admittedly, the mobile phones were seized from the petitioner on 19.10.2022. The six months period has lapsed on 19.04.2023 - Indisputably, the Principal Commissioner of Customs has not extended the time period as postulated under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act. The continued detention of the mobile phones by the respondents is illegal and untenable. Therefore, the respondents are to be directed to forthwith return the mobile phones to the petitioner - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The main issue in this case is the seizure of the petitioner's mobile phones by the customs officials and the legal obligation to return them within a specified time period under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Seizure of Mobile Phones and Legal Obligation to Return:
The petitioner, who works abroad, had his mobile phones seized by customs officials after returning from Sharjah. The seizure was related to allegations of gold smuggling and a subsequent altercation. The petitioner argued that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if no notice is issued within six months of seizure, the goods must be returned. The petitioner's mobile phones were seized on 19.10.2022, and as the six-month period lapsed on 19.04.2023, the phones should have been returned. The Principal Commissioner of Customs did not extend the time period as allowed by law. The court held that the continued detention of the mobile phones was illegal and ordered the respondents to return them to the petitioner within one week.

Significant Legal Points:
1. The provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 dictate the timeline for returning seized goods if no notice is issued within a specified period.
2. The power to extend the confiscation period lies with the Principal Commissioner of Customs, as per the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Act.
3. Failure to return seized goods within the stipulated time renders the detention illegal and untenable under the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal timelines and procedures in cases of seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act, ensuring that individuals' rights are protected and arbitrary detention is prevented.