9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to the power to seize or detain a vehicle carrying excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Analysis: The judgment addresses the argument raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the seizure of a vehicle carrying excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel contended that a vehicle found carrying excisable goods cannot be seized under the provisions of the Acts. The court examined Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the seizure of goods if the proper officer believes they are liable for confiscation. The court emphasized that vehicles carrying goods liable to confiscation under the Act can also be seized, as per Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, which has been made applicable to the Act. The term "goods" in Section 110 includes conveyances, and there is no limitation excluding vehicles from this definition. The court rejected the argument that vehicles should not be considered "goods" under the Act and upheld the power to seize such vehicles carrying dutiable goods. The judgment also discussed Rule 200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which allows for the search of conveyances but does not explicitly mention the power to seize them. The court concluded that the ordinary grammatical meaning of the term "goods" should apply to Section 110, without limiting it to exclude vehicles. The purpose of the Act includes preventing duty evasion on goods subject to duty, which may involve the seizure of vehicles used in such evasion. The court highlighted that the Rules of interpretation do not require restrictive interpretations of the term "goods" in the Act. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the petitioner's argument regarding Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, which sets out the procedure for confiscation of goods and penalties. The petitioner contended that since no action had been taken against the vehicle within a year, there was no purpose in keeping it in custody. The court ruled that this aspect should be considered by the Collector of Customs, not the court, and declined to intervene in the matter. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ application, with no order as to costs, based on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Acts and Rules involved in the case.
|
