TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered worthless upon release. In the light of the above discussion, the Petition has to succeed. It is declared that the effect of non-issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 in this case, has resulted in the operation of Section 110(2) and the statutory dissolution of the seizure order made in the case of the Petitioner's car. The said vehicle – released provisionally and subject to conditions under Section 110-A – shall be deemed to have been unconditionally released. If the Maserati car has not been released, the same shall be released within two weeks and the superdarinama is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. - WP (C) No. 2952/2012, CM Nos. 6364/2012, 8854/2012 & 9968/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, JJ Appellant Rep. by : Mr. Pradeep Jain with Mr. P.A. Augustian and Mr. Sumit, Adv Respondent Rep. by : Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Satish Aggarwala and Mr. Ashish Virmani, Adv for UOI. Mr. V.C. Jha, Adv JUDGEMENT Per : S. Ravindra Bhat, J : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the Panchanama dated 09.05.2012 through which Respondent No.5, the Directorate of Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 110 (2). 5. The revenue relied on the judgment reported as Jayant Hansraj Shah v Union of India 2009 (1) Bom CR 474 to say that whenever the power to issue show cause notice is preserved, and a request is made, to release the goods taken into custody, there would be no question of unconditional release, by operation of Section 110(2) of the Act. 6. This court has considered the arguments of the parties. The relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read as: 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things: (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (2) Where any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 124 of the Customs Act and held as follows: Section 124 provides that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. The Section does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given. The period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice. The Supreme Court in J.K. Bardolia Mills v Dy. Collector and Ors. 1994 (5) SCC 332 followed its previous decision, and held that: When the goods are seized under Section 110(1) of the Act that amounts to seizure of the goods under the Act and one of the conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 123 of the Act are satisfied by the mere factum of seizure. The effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 110(2) would only be that the seized goods are returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. 8. The above view was followed by this Court in Krampe Hydraulik (India) v Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suing a show cause notice within the period or extended period specified is clearly spelt out to be that the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized (apparent from a combined reading of Section 110 (2) and its proviso). The corollary is not that the Customs authorities lose jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. 10. Now, such being the case, the question is if the customs authorities accede to a request to release the goods, under Section 110-A, would such event absolve or override the operation of Section 110 (2). It is to assert such a proposition that the respondents rely on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah. There, the request for release had been made within the period; however, the extended period of six months had not expired. The Court, in that context, ruled that: 9. Under Section 110-A there is a power to provisionally release the seized goods pending order of adjudication on taking a bond in a proper form with security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require. It is, therefore, clear that from the date of seizure till the order of adjudication the Commissioner of Customs has the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or six months, as the case may be) the goods are returnable to the person from whose possession they were seized. The Bombay view, expressed in Jayant Hansraj Shah cannot be divorced from its context, and any effort to say that release under Section 110A would extinguish the operation of the consequence (of not issuing show cause notice, within the statutory period) spelt out in Section 110 (2) would be contrary to the plain meaning and intendment of the statute. This is because Section 110-A is by way of an interim order, enabling release of goods, (for instance, where they are fast moving, or perishable). The existence of such power does not in any way impede or limit the operation of the mandatory provision of Section 110 (2), particularly the time limit for issuance of show cause notice, in so far as it relates to the consequence of statutory dissolution of the seizure. There are no internal indications in Section 110-A that the amplitude of Section 110 (2) is curtailed, or the effect of the consequence (of transgressing the time limit, i.e. statutory lifting of the seizure) being overborne, by use of devices such as a non-obstante clause or words such as Nothing in Sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
