Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 398 - HC - CustomsSeizure of goods - Smuggling - Confiscation of Zink Ingot alongwith vehicle - Contraband item or not - truck along with the goods were seized in exercise of power under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the goods brought into India from Nepal without any documents is liable to confiscation - point has been raised by the petitioner that before seizure, the authority was to form an opinion that he has a reasonable belief that the goods are liable for confiscation under the Act. HELD THAT:- Section 123 of the Customs Act does not apply to the matter as the material seized is not any of the item mentioned under Section 123 of the Customs Act but, it is the common law that if the goods has been seized on reasonable belief that it is a smuggled goods from third country then, in that circumstances, the person from whose possession the seizure has been made, he has to show that the goods, which has been seized, does not fall in the mischief of the Customs Act or is not of a third country material. In the present case, the driver in a specific term has stated that the goods were loaded by Manoj Sah and he has stated that it is likely the goods has come from Nepal. In such circumstances, the submission of the petitioner that it is not from Nepal territory, unless it is shown by valid document or material from the person they have purchased, in such circumstances, in view of the statement of the driver, rightly the confiscation has been made and the order has been passed holding that the material is from Nepal origin and, in the present case, the driver has stated that the materials are of Manoj Sah, the petitioner no.3 whereas the petitioner no.1 Shiv Shankar Prasad (Noticee No.2) is claiming to be the owner of the goods. So, it is an unverified material as to who is the owner of the property. The vehicle has already been released and ₹ 50,000/- has been forfeited, treated to be the value of the vehicle. When the ownership of the property is in dispute, the proper course for the petitioner no.1, who is claiming to be the owner of the property, is to file proper application under Section 125 of the Customs Act before the authority of proper jurisdiction who will take a decision in accordance with law - this Court does not find that the petitioners have made out a case for interference with the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Muzaffarpur Camp at Bodh Gaya. Thus, this Court is of the view that if any of the petitioners file an application under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Authority concerned will consider the case on merit - application dismissed.
|