9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24(a) read with Section 110 (1) and (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Section 124 states that before passing any order for confiscation of any goods or imposition of any penalty, a notice in writing by the customs authority informing the person of the grounds on which action is contemplated is to be "given". 3. Section 110 (1) gives the proper officer of customs power to seize goods which he thinks are liable to confiscation. 4. Now, Section 110 (2) provides that if no notice under Section 124(a) is given to the person from whom the goods are seized within six months of their seizure they would have to be returned to him. 5. The proviso to Section 110 (2) vests the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs power to ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice as having been validly delivered under Section 110 (2) of the said Act, he submitted. 11. We, note the first proviso of Section 110 (2) which states that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs has the power to extend the period of six months by a further period not exceeding six months. 12. This power was not exercised by the concerned Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 13. The words of Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 are absolutely plain that if, no show cause notice is "given" within six months or within such extended time as provided in the first proviso not exceeding six months, the seized goods have to be returned to the person from whom they were seized. There is no power conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n decided in Purushottam Jajodia v. Dir. Of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi reported in 2014 (307) E.L.T. 837 (Del) also cited by learned counsel for the respondent. It is a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed delivering the judgment of the Division Bench relied upon a dicta of the Supreme Court in K. Narsimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda reported in AIR 1966 SC 330 to the following effect: "15. The view expressed by the Supreme Court was as under:- "11. This brings us to the main contention that three days' notice of the special general meeting was not given and so the meeting is invalid. We find it difficult to agree with the High Court that "sending" the notice amounts to "giving" the notice. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven" appearing in Sections 110 (2) and 124 (a) of the said Act. After referring to the Supreme Court decision in K. Narasimhiah (supra) the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed as under:- "6. In our opinion, this decision of the Supreme Court clearly indicates that looking to the object for which the notice is to be given as provided in that particular piece of legislation, the Court has to consider whether the giving of the notice with the particular object in view is so material as to render the proceedings subsequent to non-compliance with such provision invalid or in the present case, whether the notice can be said to have been properly given as contemplated by law. The words in Section 124 are - "the owner of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. Relying on these two judgments, Justice Ahmed in Purushottam Jajodia held: "25. While the Madhya Pradesh High Court was right in observing that the object of Section 110 (2) and Section 124(a) of the said Act read together was to apprise the concerned person of the grounds on which the confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty was proposed, with respect, it was wrong when it concluded that when the legislature had used the "words" "notice is given" it would "obviously mean that the notice must be issued within six months of the date of seizure". In our view, the expression "notice is given" does not logically translate to the conclusion that "notice must be issued within the stipulated period". 26. For the above reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice, the proceedings would have to continue subject to release of the goods to its owner. 22. The goods were not released and the respondent had to approach this Court by the instant writ. 23. On 5th April, 2024, the impugned judgment and order was passed directing release of the goods. The present appeal was filed on 3rd May, 2024. On 9th May, 2024, this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction directed retention of the goods by the Customs authorities. 24. Now, on 25th November, 2024 the adjudication proceedings under Section 124 of the said Act concluded by an order passed by the Customs authorities for confiscation of the goods. There was no provision for redemption of the goods by the respondent. 25. The simple ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
