TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended that on 11.02.2015, the petitioner arrived from Dubai at IGI Airport Terminal T-3. The petitioner was intercepted by the Custom Officers at the exit gate before crossing the green channel and was questioned for detainable goods being in his possession. It is contended that the gold kara (bracelet), owned by the petitioner, was seized on the ground that gold kara (bracelet) is imported from Dubai. Detention Memo dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure P - 2) was issued. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sought release of the gold kara (bracelet) alongwith supporting documents to show that the said gold kara (bracelet) was his ancestral jewellery and was owned by him even before leaving for Dubai. The representation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly in case of seizure of the goods and not in case of detention. 9. It is further contended that the petitioner was to present himself for the purposes of appraisal and clearance of the gold kara (bracelet). Since the petitioner did not present himself, the gold kara (bracelet) could not be appraised and, accordingly, cleared. It is the contention of the respondents that since the petitioner did not cooperate with the respondents, the gold kara (bracelet) cannot be released. It is only on appraisal of the gold kara (bracelet) that the authorities would be in a position to take a decision whether to seize the goods or not and it is only thereafter that the limitation, as prescribed by sub-Section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act, would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice under 124(a) of the Act has admittedly been issued. 14. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the goods have not been seized but have only been detained, the judgment in the case of Mohd. Salman Khan (supra) squarely covers the issue. The Division Bench in the said case has held as under:- "9. Whatever may be the justification that the Customs Department wishes to put forth for seizing the goods, there is a definite time-limit within which the Department has to determine if the seized goods are to be confiscated and if so, for giving a SCN under Section 124(a) of the Act. There appears to be no provision for 'detention' of goods instead of their 'seizure'. Therefore, where a custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the Petitioner in the first place and secondly, in not giving a SCN within six months of such seizure. In the absence of any provision in the Act that permits 'detention' of such goods, the Court has to proceed on the basis that what was effected on 17th June, 2014 was a 'seizure' of Nepalese currency from the petitioner. That the seized currency was in the possession of the Petitioner and seized from him is also not in dispute. 12. 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, th....