9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransported Hashish in the car. Since it was used for smuggling it was liable for confiscation; the car was seized. On 17-1-1980 notice was issued to Rana asking him to show cause as to why the Hashish and the Car be not confiscated. A criminal complaint was also filed on 6-2-1981 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (to be called the Act). Rana pleaded guilty on 19-2-1931 and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. 3. The petitioner has come to this court in the present petition on the allegation that he had asked the Collector of Customs by his communication of April and May, 1981 to return the car to him, but had got no response. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the car and Rana was his friend whom he had permitted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpose a penalty. It is apparent that under section 110(2) if no notice is given as provided for under section 124 within six months the goods have to be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of this provision because the goods were seized not from him but from somebody else i.e. Rana. Notice had already been served on Rana on 19-1-1980 i.e. within six months. The question, therefore, of returning the seized goods to Rana or to the petitioner without first adjudicating whether the car is liable to be confiscated or not cannot arise. Mr. Harjindar Singh, however, urged that the period of six months provided under Section 110(2) is to be read also under Section 124 with the result that when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Vice para 5 of the Judgment). In T.N. Khambati (supra) reliance is placed on (AIR 1972 Gujarat 126) A.M. Soni v. Union of India. It is however, significant that a later decision in J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khungar, Dy. Collector of Central Excise and Customs and others (1975 Gujarat Law Journal 119) has however, dissented from the earlier decision and has held that 'the provisions relating to the seizure of the goods and those relating to the confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty stand on different footing. Section 124 of the Act does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given. The period laid down in Section 110(2) of the Customs Act relates only to the seizure of the goods and not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tension of time illegally made ex parte. So the failure to give notice under Section 110 of the Act cannot in any way affect She power to proceed with proceedings for confiscation. The argument, therefore, that as notice was not issued within six months from the date of seizure the petitioner is entitled to the return of the car is without any merits. As a matter of fact notice within 6 months was issued to the person from whom the car was seized i.e. Rana. Absence of notice within 6 months to the petitioner is of no consequence. It may be that when the petitioner addressed letters to the respondents stating that no notice was served on him, there could have been earlier response. But this aspect may indicate the lack of care by the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
