Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 146 - HC - CustomsConfiscation of Goods – Service of notice – Lapse of period – Petitioner seeking quashing of communication/letter, Annexure- F, issued by third respondent, contending that non issuance of notice under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 within period prescribed under Section 110(2) has given right to petitioner to seek for return of seized goods – Held that:- Section 110(2) indicate giving of notice within six months from date of seizure of goods is condition precedent to retain seized goods by department and in absence of such notice being issued to owner, goods seized to be returned – Annexure-F issued by third respondent would clearly indicate that Show Cause Notice-Annexure-A came to be issued within period of six months from date of seizure of goods as contemplated under Section 110(2) – Goods came to be confiscated by proper officer, show cause notice came to be issued before expiry of six months period – Section 153 provides that notice issued under Act should be served in manner as provided under said Section – It does not even remotely suggest that such person should be served with such notice to hold service of notice as complete – Dispatching of notice by registered post would constitute valid service – Thus, date of sending or dispatching notice by registered post is date of giving notice as contemplated under Section 110(2) – Once authority concerned makes out case for confiscation within time-limit, it cannot sit idle – It has to make concerned person aware of such case by giving written notice – Therefore, date of service of notice cannot be held as one which entitles petitioner to seek for return of goods on ground that six months period had expired – Decided against assesse.
|