Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (5) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, the Court had rejected the Revenue s contention that no notice of proceedings under sub-section (1B) was required to be issued as neither Sub-section (1B) nor Sub-section (1C) of Section 110 of the Customs Act mandated issuance of any such notice to be served to the owner or the person from whom the goods are seized. In PRADEEP KHANDELWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) ANR. [ 2022 (4) TMI 1529 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , this Court held that In an exercise of this nature, the law would oblige adherence to principals of natural justice [i.e. notice and participation in the exercise] especially given the fact that there is no express exclusion in the Act. There are no merit in the contention that no notice is required to be served of the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act. As noted above, Sub-section (1D) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was introduced to substitute the authority before whom an application for certifying the correctness of the inventory; taking photographs of the seized goods; and drawing representative samples is required to be made. In respect of seized gold, the proper officer is required to make an application before the Commis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h) at a tariff value of ₹2,15,57,250/- (Rupees two crores fifteen lacs fifty seven thousand two hundred and fifty only). The market value of the said goods was determined at ₹2,34,00,000/- (Rupees two crores thirty four lacs only). Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2021 was issued, inter alia, to the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, on 14.10.2021, the respondents returned four gold bars, which were seized on 20.02.2021. The controversy, thus, relates to a single gold bar of 1000 grams, which continued to be retained by the concerned authorities. 6. It is stated that the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act were conducted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 21.11.2022 and the seized inventory was certified. Further, by an order dated 24.11.2022, the respondents were also granted permission for disposal of the seized gold. 7. Thereafter, the respondents issued a notice dated 25.11.2022 under Section 150 of the Customs Act informing the addressees, including the petitioner, that proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act were completed on 21.11.2022, and by an order dated 24.11.2022, the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice to the petitioner. 12. Sub-section (1D) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 (Act 13 of 2021) with effect from 28.03.2021. Prior to the insertion of the said Sub-section, the proper officer was required to make an application to a Magistrate under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, for the purposes of certifying the correctness of the inventory; taking photographs of the goods in presence of the Magistrate; and to draw representative samples of such goods. 13. Sub-sections (1A), 1(B), (1C) and (1D) of Section 110 of the Customs Act are relevant and are set out below for ready reference: (1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ance of any such notice to be served to the owner or the person from whom the goods are seized. The relevant extract from the said decision reads as under: 15. From a cumulative reading of these provisions it is clear that the preparation of inventory or other steps contemplated under sub-section (1-B), to be certified by the magistrate, such as taking of photographs or drawing of representative samples or certifying the correctness of the photographs, etc. related to the main object of disposal of the property in terms of section 110 (I-A) of the Customs Act. 16. Mr. Herjinder Singh has a valid argument when he contends that the disposal of the case property can have very grave implications for an accused inasmuch as it may vitally affect his defence that might be open to him, on facts or law, on even as to identity or description of the case property, or as in this case, he has urged, inter alia, that the seizing officer was not the proper officer within the meaning of relevant provisions of Customs Act, and that as such any proposal to dispose it off or any order which has an implication of being a step in aid towards that direction, carry the inherent obligation that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons of the Customs Act, there is a decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, reported as AIR 1968 Calcutta 28, (Charandas Malhotra v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent Preventive Services and Others), with reference to the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, in respect of the notice under section 124 of the Act, providing that period of six months in issuing such a notice may be extended further by the Collector of Customs for a period up to 6 months, on sufficient cause being shown. It was held that since the extension of time for issuing show cause notice, affects vested rights of the person, from whom the goods were seized, inasmuch as in the absence of extension and no show cause notice having been issued within the original period, he is entitled to the release of goods; hearing to such a person is necessary before considering the request for extension of time. 20. I am therefore of my firm view that it is not open to the Customs Department to contend that the application moved under Section 110 (1-B) of the Customs Act; with implicit object of disposal of goods in exercise of the powers under Section 110 (1-A) of the Customs Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates