TMI Blog1973 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of notice to 31 -5 -1970. He actually gave a show cause notice on 1 -5 -1970 that is more than six months after the seizure of the watches but before the expiry of one year. The contention that was raised was that the requirements under Section 110 of the Act had not been complied with, and therefore no further action could be taken by the authorities under Section 124 of the Act. Section 110 occurs in Chapter XIII of the Customs Act which relates to searches, seizure and arrest. Dealing with the power of the officers to seize goods, documents and other things. Section 110 provides that if the officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation, he may seize the goods. The proviso enables the officer in cases where it is not practicable to seize the goods, to 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. Sub -section (2) enables the officer to keep the seized goods for a period of 6 months. But when goods are seized under sub -section (1) of Section 110 of the Act, if a notice as provided for under Clause (a) of Section 124 is not given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities to proceed with the proceedings for confiscating the goods or imposing any penalty. Mr. Delia the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a valid notice, within the period specified under Section 110 is sine qua non for taking action under Section 124 of the Customs Act. We do not see any justification for the acceptance of such a contention. These two sections are entirely independent. Section 110 deals with the right of the officer to retain the seized goods for a specified period and his duty to return them to the possession of the owner from whom they were seized unless action under Section 124 had been taken. Section 124 prescribes the procedure under which the goods can be confiscated and penalty can be imposed. All that Section 124 requires is fulfilling the conditions specified in sub -clauses (a) (b) and (c). In this case the Collector extended the period upto 31 -5 -1970 and the show cause notice was actually given on 1 -5 -1970, before the expiry of the extended period. In this case we do not propose to go into the question as to whether the time for issue of a show cause notice was properly extended or not, for, it does not arise. The proceedings were ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons within the time laid down in Section 110 (2) and that, therefore, extension of that period had become necessary. Holding that the Collector cannot extend the time unless he is satisfied on the facts placed before him that there is a sufficient cause necessitating, extension, the court proceeded to observe that the order of the Collector extending the period for the issue of a show cause notice was not valid. The decision does not tend any support to the contention that when once notice under Section 110 is not properly given, proceedings under Section 124 are not open. On the other hand, the passage in paragraph 5 of the judgment would indicate contra. The passage is quoted below - 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. Section 124 provides that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made 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 penalty. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that part of the case. ( 6. ) Mr . Dolia contends, that any defect in the notice under Section 110 would bar proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act. On the other hand, the passage cited would indicate that a notice under Section 110 is only with reference to the power of seizure and detention goods and the notice contemplated under Section 124 does not require that it should be within a particular time. The learned counsel relied on certain decisions of other High Courts, namely, P. N. Agarwal v. Union of India, 1972 All LJ 963 : (1973 Tax LR 2168) and Kunjan v. Asst. Collector of Customs, 1972 Ker LT 407. The first decision related to the power under the proviso to Section 110 (2) of the Act. The Allahabad High Court held that the power under the proviso to Section 110 cannot be exercised without affording an opportunity of being heard being given to person from whose possession the goods are seized. In dealing with the powers under Section 110 (2) the court observed - It is, therefore, clear that the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, was not competent to extend the period of six months mentioned in Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, without giving an opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is void cannot be upheld. In the result, we find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge that notice under Section 110 (2) and notice under Section 124 of the Act should be given within six months from the date of seizure of the goods; nor are we able to accept the view of the learned Judge that a vested right is created in favour of the owner of the goods when a show cause notice under Section 124 is not given within six months as provided for under Section 110 (2). ( 7. ) For the reasons stated above, the appeals have to be allowed and the judgment of the learned Judge set aside. ( 8. ) So far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, we do not see any justification at all for the High Court to interfere. Section 137 of the Act provides that no court shall take cognisance of any offence under Sections 132 to 134 or Section 135 except with the previous sanction of the Collector of Customs. The Collector gave the sanction for prosecution of an offence under Section 135. The contention is that as the notice under Section 124 as contemplated under Section 110 is not proper, the owner of the goods is immune from taking any further proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
