1982 (11) TMI 56 - HC - Customs

Seized goods Retention beyond the time limit is illegal and without jurisdiction Natural justice Invalid extension of period for retention Burden of proof wrongly cast on the petitioner Order of confiscation illegal Prohibitory order Effect Burden of proof Smuggled goods

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this case are:

• Whether the confiscation of goods is lawful when the detention of those goods by customs authorities was unlawful due to an invalid extension of the detention period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
• The legal effect and validity of an ex parte extension order under the proviso to Section 110(2) without notice to the owner of the seized goods.
• The nature and extent of the vested civil right to restoration of goods under Section 110(2) upon expiry of the detention period and its interplay with confiscation proceedings under Section 124.
• Whether Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act are independent provisions or are interrelated in terms of the detention and confiscation of seized goods.
• The requirement of "reasonable belief" by the customs officer at the time of seizure under Section 110(1) and whether such belief existed in the present case.
• The consequences of unlawful detention of goods on subsequent confiscation orders and adjudication proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Lawfulness of Confiscation When Detention Was Unlawful

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 110(2) of the Customs Act mandates that if no notice under Section 124(a) is issued within six months of seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The proviso allows extension of this period by the Collector for up to six more months on sufficient cause. The Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Dass Malhotra established that the power to extend is quasi-judicial and requires a hearing to the owner, and that the right to restoration of goods after six months is a vested civil right.

Court's Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the order extending the detention period in this case was made ex parte without notice to the petitioner, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the detention beyond six months was unlawful. Since the detention was unlawful, the subsequent confiscation order was also illegal and void. The Court held that the right to restoration of goods vested in the petitioner on expiry of six months and could not be divested by an invalid extension or subsequent confiscation.

Application of Law to Facts: The customs authorities seized goods on 15-2-1967 but issued the extension order on 4-8-1967 without hearing the petitioner. No notice under Section 124 was issued within six months. The petitioner demanded return of goods, but the customs refused and confiscated the goods on 14-8-1968. The Court found this refusal and confiscation to be contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 110(2).

Competing Arguments: The Union argued that confiscation could still be valid despite non-return of goods and that the petitioner could sue for damages. The Court rejected this, underscoring the primacy of statutory obligations and the rule of law.

Conclusion: Confiscation following unlawful detention is void. The goods must be returned once the statutory period expires without valid extension or notice.

2. Validity of Ex Parte Extension of Detention Period

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in Malhotra's case held that the extension power under the proviso to Section 110(2) is quasi-judicial and cannot be exercised without giving the person from whom the goods were seized an opportunity to be heard.

Court's Reasoning: The Court held that the ex parte extension order in this case was invalid because it was made without notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Such an extension cannot defeat the vested civil right of the owner to restoration of goods after six months.

Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner was not given notice or hearing before the extension was granted on 4-8-1967. Hence, the extension was null and void.

Conclusion: Extension orders must be made after hearing the affected person; ex parte orders are void and cannot extend detention.

3. Vested Civil Right to Restoration of Goods and Its Interplay with Confiscation Proceedings

Legal Framework and Precedents: Malhotra's case established that the right to restoration of goods after six months is a vested civil right that can only be defeated by a valid extension and issuance of notice under Section 124(a). Section 126 provides that confiscated goods vest in the Central Government only if they have not vested in the owner by virtue of restoration rights.

Court's Reasoning: The Court emphasized that once the right to restoration vests, it cannot be defeated by subsequent confiscation orders. Confiscation presupposes lawful possession by customs, which ceases when goods are restored. Hence, confiscation after restoration is a contradiction and legally impermissible.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the extension was invalid and no notice under Section 124 was issued within six months, the goods vested in the petitioner. The confiscation order passed thereafter was therefore null and void.

Competing Arguments: Some courts have held Sections 110 and 124 to be independent, allowing confiscation even after restoration. The Court rejected this view as inconsistent with the statutory scheme and Supreme Court precedent.

Conclusion: The vested civil right to restoration cannot be negated by confiscation orders passed after unlawful detention or invalid extension.

4. Interrelationship Between Sections 110 and 124

Legal Framework and Precedents: Judicial opinions are divided. Some High Courts hold Sections 110 and 124 are independent; others hold they are interrelated. Malhotra's case supports the latter view, emphasizing the connection between detention period and issuance of notice for confiscation.

Court's Reasoning: The Court aligned with the view that Sections 110 and 124 are interconnected. The detention period under Section 110 limits the time within which notice under Section 124 must be issued. Failure to issue notice within this period or valid extension results in mandatory restoration, precluding confiscation.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court rejected decisions that treat the two provisions as independent and criticized the resulting undermining of the owner's right to restoration.

Conclusion: Sections 110 and 124 are closely linked; detention and confiscation rights are conditional and sequential, not independent.

5. Requirement of Reasonable Belief at Time of Seizure

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 110(1) requires the officer to have a reasonable belief that goods are liable to confiscation before seizure. Supreme Court decisions emphasize that reasonable belief must be based on definite material or information and exist at the time of seizure. Section 123 presumes goods are smuggled only if this condition is met.

Court's Reasoning: The Court found no reasonable belief in this case. The customs officer acted on vague, undisclosed information and mere non-accounting of goods by the petitioner. The goods bore no foreign markings or other indicia of smuggling. The petitioner's explanation was credible and supported by correspondence from the queen mother's representative.

Application of Law to Facts: The officer's belief was speculative and not based on concrete evidence. The Board of Excise and Customs had also found no evidence that the petitioner knew the goods were smuggled, leading to remission of penalty. Hence, the presumption under Section 123 could not arise.

Conclusion: Seizure without reasonable belief is unlawful; burden of proof cannot be shifted to the petitioner in such cases.

6. Effect of Unlawful Detention on Confiscation Proceedings

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court reiterated that unlawful detention of goods after expiry of the statutory period infects the entire confiscation proceeding with illegality, rendering it a nullity. Confiscation is the "offspring" of seizure and requires lawful possession of goods by customs.

Court's Reasoning: Since the detention beyond six months was unlawful, the confiscation order passed thereafter is void. The customs authorities cannot take advantage of their own illegal acts. The Court rejected arguments that confiscation could be sustained and damages claimed instead.

Application of Law to Facts: The confiscation order dated 14-8-1968 was passed after unlawful detention and without valid extension or notice. It is therefore illegal and quashed.

Conclusion: Unlawful detention nullifies subsequent confiscation orders; goods must be returned immediately.

Significant Holdings

"The true effect of the provision of Section 110 is that if notice for further proceedings under Section 124 is not served within the time of six months and in any event one year from the date of the seizure, the seized goods must be returned to the person from whose possession they were taken. This is an absolute obligation and a liability imposed on the customs under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act."

"The right to restoration of the seized goods is a vested civil right which accrued to the owner of the goods on the expiry of six months."

"The extension to be valid must be given not on an ex parte determination by the collector but after giving to the owner a notice of the proposed extension and after hearing him. If he makes an ex parte order and does not hear the owner of the goods on the question of extension, the extension order will be non-est."

"Confiscation is the off-spring of seizure. The Supreme Court has said that Section 110(2) imposes a statutory obligation on the customs to return the goods to the person from whom they are seized. This statutory obligation the customs authorities refused to discharge. They treated the request of the petitioner for the restoration of the goods to him with contempt."

"If the detention of the goods becomes illegal after the expiry of the period of six months it must inevitably be held that the confiscation of the goods is illegal. As the root is so is the fruit."

"The right to the restoration of goods which accrues to the person from whom the goods are seized is a 'vested' right, meaning thereby a right to absolute ownership of the goods and not subject to be defeated by any subsequent proceedings taken against the goods in absentia."

"The power of extension under the proviso is not to be exercised without an opportunity of being heard given to the person from whom the goods are seized."

"The goods must be smuggled goods. The word 'smuggled' means that the goods were of foreign origin and they had been imported from abroad. Only then does the presumption under Section 123 arise."

"The customs officer must have some definite materials by way of some definite information to form the foundation of his reasonable belief."

"The goods liable to be returned under Section 110(2) are not returned. The customs confiscate them. This executive action is supported by independents, as the cases show. But, in my opinion, this is entirely illegal. It must be condemned and not upheld."

"The seizure of goods which was by lawful authority at its inception becomes illegal after the expiry of six months in this case. The continued detention of goods beyond six months is illegal. This illegality enters into the adjudication proceedings and vitiates the confiscation order."

"The right to restoration of the goods entrenched in Section 110(2) cannot be defeated by an order of confiscation once it has accrued to the man and has vested in him."

"The extension being invalid and the goods having been detained in contravention of the statutory obligation the adjudication proceedings and the resultant order of confiscation are nullities."

"The power of confiscation cannot remain available for all time to come in respect of the goods seized under Section 110 of the Act."

Final Determinations on Each Issue

• The ex parte extension of the detention period under Section 110(2) without notice to the petitioner was invalid and void ab initio.
• The detention of goods beyond six months without valid extension or notice under Section 124 was unlawful and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 110(2).
• The right to restoration of goods after six months is a vested civil right that cannot be defeated by subsequent confiscation orders passed after unlawful detention.
• Sections 110 and 124 are interrelated; the detention period limits the time for issuance of notice under Section 124, and failure to comply results in mandatory restoration.
• The customs officer did not have a reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods were smuggled; the seizure was therefore unlawful.
• Confiscation orders arising from unlawful detention and invalid seizure are nullities and must be quashed.
• The respondents are directed to return the disputed goods forthwith to the petitioner.