9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Release of seized car (Lexus LS 460) u/s 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-issuance of show cause notice within the stipulated period.
Summary: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the respondents for not releasing the car seized by respondent No. 1 on 26-4-2011, without issuing a show cause notice u/s 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 within the extended period of one year as per u/s 110(2). 2. As per u/s 110(2), goods seized must be returned if no notice u/s 124(a) is given within six months, extendable by another six months by the Commissioner of Customs. The car was seized on 26-4-2011, and the one-year period expired on 25-4-2012, with no show cause notice issued. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 16-5-2012. The petitioner argued for the immediate release of the car based on the mandatory provisions of u/s 110(2), citing previous court decisions supporting this view. 3. The respondent's counsel compared the provisions of u/s 110(2) to bail provisions u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, referencing a Supreme Court decision. However, the court reiterated that u/s 110(2) is mandatory, and failure to issue a show cause notice within the stipulated period requires the return of seized goods, without importing provisions from other laws like the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In line with previous decisions, the court directed the unconditional release of the car to the petitioner, emphasizing that this ruling does not reflect on the merits of the case, which will be decided by the relevant authority following the show cause notice issued on 16-5-2012. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
