Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 619 - HC - CustomsDisposal of the seized goods - Non-issuance of SCN - Conclusion of proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act, without issuance of SCN - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT:- With the introduction of Sub-section (1D) in Section 110 of the Customs Act, Commissioner (Appeals) was specified as the concerned authority in respect of seized gold in any form. The proper officer is now required to make an application to the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction instead of the Magistrate under Sub-section (1B) in respect of gold in any form, which is seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act. In ISHWAR PARASRAM PUNJABI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1989 (10) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI], this Court had, inter alia, considered the question whether notice of proceeding under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act was required to be issued to the owner or the persons from whom the goods were seized. In that case, the Court had rejected the Revenue’s contention that no notice of proceedings under sub-section (1B) was required to be issued as neither Sub-section (1B) nor Sub-section (1C) of Section 110 of the Customs Act mandated issuance of any such notice to be served to the owner or the person from whom the goods are seized. In PRADEEP KHANDELWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) & ANR. [2022 (4) TMI 1529 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court held that In an exercise of this nature, the law would oblige adherence to principals of natural justice [i.e. notice and participation in the exercise] especially given the fact that there is no express exclusion in the Act. There are no merit in the contention that no notice is required to be served of the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act. As noted above, Sub-section (1D) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was introduced to substitute the authority before whom an application for certifying the correctness of the inventory; taking photographs of the seized goods; and drawing representative samples is required to be made. In respect of seized gold, the proper officer is required to make an application before the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction instead of the Magistrate as required under Sub-section (1B) to Section 110 of the Customs Act. Although the authority before whom an application is to be made was substituted, there was no amendment in the procedure to be followed. Thus, the decision in the case of Ishwar Parasram Punjabi v. Union of India applies equally to proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act. Although the petitioner is entitled to insist that the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act be conducted de novo – as directed by the Court in the case of Pradeep Khandelwal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) & Anr. no such orders are warranted in this case as the goods in question have already been sold. Petition disposed off.
|