Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1988 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (5) TMI 40 - SC - CustomsWhether the notice, dated 4th May, 1974 issued under Section 124(a) of the Act was issued beyond the period of six months of the seizure of goods made on 12-5-1973 and as such the entire proceedings were invalid for this reason? Held that:- the order was passed not in violation of the principles of justice. It must be reiterated whether a notice was given or not within a stipulated time for extension as contemplated under Section 110(2) is a question of fact. It is also true that the onus that the order was passed without notice, was on the person who assets it to be so and this is a question of facts. There was an assertion to this effect in the collector's order, the assertion remained uncontroverted by any specific evidence and also by failure to urge this point. In that view of the matter, the inference drawn by the High Court that such notice was given as contemplated under Section 110(2), in our opinion, was not unwarranted. As the High Court noted that the value of the watches was mentioned as one of the particulars in the show cause notice given to the petitioner and this value was not refuted by the petitioner in his reply. The petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity at any stage to oppose the extention of time or to refute the allegations made in the show cause notice given thereafter.This provision had been substituted by the Act 36 of 1973 and would be applicable in the instant case. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof of trust on him by the aforesaid section. In the present case the penalty was not heavy and the High Court was right. High Court was right in not entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appeal rejected
|