Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mohd Salman Khan Versus Union of India And Others

2016 (4) TMI 97 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Seeking release of Nepalese currency - Nepalese currency of the value of ₹ 5 lakhs equal to Indian ₹ 3.1 lakhs were seized and detention receipt given on 17th June, 2014 - Application for release filed on 07.07.2014 but till date not received any reply - Respondent contended that appellant not present himself for examination or has not submitted any document to prove the legitimate possession of the currency and department did not convert the detention into seizure as there is a diff .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eized currency was in the possession of the Petitioner and seized from him is also not in dispute. - If that is the position, then under Section 110(2) of the Act a SCN had to be given under Section 124(a) of the Act within six months of 17th June 2014. With no such SCN having been given, the inevitable consequence, therefore, is that as mandated by Section 110(2) of the Act, the seized goods "shall be returned to the person from whose possession it was seized". Consequently, the Respondents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this Court seeking release of the Nepalese currency that were seized from him when he was on his way to Dubai on 17th June, 2014. The seizure was affected by the Air Custom Officer (Preventive), Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3 (Respondent No.4 herein). According to the Petitioner, Nepalese currency of the value of ₹ 5 lakhs equal to Indian ₹ 3.1 lakhs were seized. The Petitioner was given a detention receipt No. 19455 dated 17th June, 2014 by Respondent No. 4. 2. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ough his Advocate, "he was not present himself for examination or has not submitted any document to prove the legitimate possession of the currency." In para 6 of the counter affidavit, a distinction is sought to be drawn between "detention" of the currency and "seizure" of the currency. It is specifically averred that "department did not convert the detention into seizure as the Petitioner never turned back and did not cooperate. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner (Customs) for a period not exceeding six months. 6. During the course of the hearing today, it transpired that despite the expiry of more than eighteen months since the date of seizure of the Nepalese currency from him, no SCN has been issued to the Petitioner. Further, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner's application for release of the currency has yet not been disposed of. 7. In response to a specific query from the Court, learned counsel for the Respondent was unable to point .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Department that he was entitled to the release of the seized currency in his favour. 8. At the outset, it requires to be observed that the legislative intent has made clear in Section 110(2) of the Act which reads as under: "S. 110 (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." .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e necessary documents to justify being in possession thereof, the Customs officer has to form an opinion under Section 110 (1) of the Act as to whether the said goods are liable to be confiscated and if so, to give a SCN under Section 124 (a) of the Act. Section 110(2) makes it clear that the maximum time limit for giving a SCN is six months from the date of seizure and this period is extendable by another six months provided sufficient cause is made out to the satisfaction of the Principal Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version