Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 787 - HC - CustomsIssues involved: The legality of seizure of areca nuts under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the validity of the Show Cause Notice issued under section 124 of the Customs Act. Seizure of Areca Nuts under Section 110 of the Customs Act: The appellants challenged the seizure of areca nuts by the customs department under section 110 of the Customs Act, contending that the seizure was without jurisdiction as the proper officer did not have the required reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. They argued that the officer failed to follow the mandatory instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which require clear reasons for believing that the goods are liable for confiscation. The appellants emphasized that without specific details indicating the goods' liability for confiscation, the seizure proceedings cannot be sustained under the Customs Act. Validity of Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act: The appellants also challenged the validity of the Show Cause Notice issued under section 124 of the Customs Act, alleging that it contained incorrect and baseless facts. They argued that the notice was illegal and not sustainable under the law. The appellants asserted that the writ petition filed against the Show Cause Notice was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the notice is deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. Judgment Analysis: The learned Single Judge concluded that the challenge to a Show Cause notice is limited to specific conditions such as lack of jurisdiction, competence, bona fide exercise of power, mala fide exercise of power, and violation of natural justice principles. The Judge observed that the impugned action by the customs authorities was based on a subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority, supported by information about an offense and the recovery of areca nuts of foreign origin. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Single Judge emphasized that interference at the stage of Show Cause notice issuance is discouraged, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. Conclusion: The High Court, after considering the arguments and material on record, upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that it was one of the possible views. The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the intra-court appeal. However, it directed the authorities to expedite the pending proceedings related to the Show Cause notice issued to the appellants, urging a decision within three months from the date of the judgment.
|