9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case, it is seen that the goods were seized from the Petitioner on the intervening night of 4th and 5th October 2019. The period of six months would have expired on 5th April 2020. It was during this period that the show-cause notice under Section 124(a) was required to be issued as per the requirement of Sub Section (2) of Section 110. However, as per the proviso this period could be extended for a further period not exceeding six months after complying with the conditions mentioned in the first proviso. Within the initial period of six months Petitioner was informed by the office of Commissioner of Customs, Pune that Commissioner of Customs, Pune being the competent authority had accorded sanction under the proviso to Section 110(2) and had granted further time to issue show-cause notice. The extended period of limitation upto six months as per the first proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act stood extended by Section 6 of the above Ordinance till 29.09.2020. This is fortified by the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 141 thereof - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as illegal; II) To set aside and quash notices dated 26.03.2020 and 27.05.2020 issued by the office of Respondent No.4; III) To direct the Respondents to release the seized gold weighing 699.88 grams valued at ₹ 27,08,136.00 to the Petitioner; IV) To drop the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 3] It is stated that on 04.10.2019 Petitioner was travelling from Chennai to Mumbai by train via Mumbai Express. An Pune Railway Station, Railway Police seized six gold bars weighing 699.88 grams valued at ₹ 27,08,136.00 from the Petitioner. 4] On 05.10.2019 Petitioner was arrested by the Railway Police whereafter his custody was handed over to Respondent No.3. However, what followed thereafter or when the Petitioner was released from detention has not been mentioned. 5] Be that as it may, in pursuance to summons dated 06.03.2020 Petitioner appeared before Respondent No.3 on 16.03.2020. According to the Petitioner he made a categorical statement that he had not smuggled the six gold bars which were seized by the office of Respondent No.3. 6] On 26.03.2020 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btained from the Commissioner. As the notice under Section 124 could not be issued within six months, request was made to grant permission for extension of time limit which was granted by the competent authority. This was informed to the Petitioner vide notices dated 26.03.2020 and 27.05.2020 whereby Petitioner was asked to co-operate with the investigation. 11.1] Reference has been made to the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. It is stated that the said proviso was amended with effect from 29.03.2018. Prior to amendment, the proviso mentioned that the initial period of six months could be extended for a period not exceeding six months by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs on sufficient cause being shown. After amendment, the proviso mentions that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period not exceeding six months and to inform the person from whom such goods were seized before expiry of the period so specified. It is stated that Respondents have complied with the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 11.2] It is subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs may for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified. Referring to Section 124 of the Customs Act, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that before confiscation of goods a notice in writing has to be given to the person concerned informing all the grounds on which confiscation is proposed. As per Sub Section (2) of Section 110, if no such notice is issued within six months of seizure, then the goods should be returned to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. Referring to the first proviso, he submits that though there is a provision for further extension of time limit for issuance of show-cause notice, such extension of time was granted by the higher authorities but within the extended period of six months no notice under Section 124(a) was issued. Therefore, on expiry of the extended period of six months, the Respondents are under legal obligation to return the seized goods to the Petitioner. Failure to do so is illegal. In this connection, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed relian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso, the aforesaid period of six months can be extended for a further period not exceeding six months by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs for reasons to be recorded in writing, which however has to be informed to the person from whom such goods were seized before expiry of the period so specified. Second proviso says that the specified period of six months shall not apply in a case where order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under Section 110A. 17] Section 124 provides for issue of show-cause notice before confiscation of goods etc. It says that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Act unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which confiscation is proposed or penalty is sought to be imposed (clause a); providing an opportunity to make a representation responding to the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty (clause b); and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard (clause c). The first proviso says that at the request of the person concerned the provision for notice and repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Finance Act 1994. It was mentioned that notwithstanding anything contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1962 (except sections 30, 30A, 41, 41A, 46 and 47), the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994, the time limit specified in or prescribed or notified under the said Acts falling during the period 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 for the completion or compliance of such action as, completion of a proceeding or issuance of any order, notice, intimation etc. shall notwithstanding that completion or compliance of such action was not made within the aforesaid period, stood extended to 30.06.2020 or such other date as may be notified by the Central Government. The use of the word notwithstanding clearly indicates that Section 6 of the Ordinance would have an over-riding effect over the provisions contained in the Customs Act except certain specific sections which does not include Section 110. 22] Respondents in their affidavit have mentioned in paragraph 7.4 that the date 30.06.2020 has been further extended to 29.09.2020 by notification dated 27.06.2020. 23] We had aske ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
