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

1978 (4) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rted from Triveni Bazar, Nepal. The customs authorities were informed of the alleged seizure. 2. On 15th March, 1978 Mr. M.R. Kathuria, Customs Inspector (Preventive), made an application to the Magistrate that the accused are reasonably believed to have committed an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly "the Act") and that the cloth and the car are liable to be seized under the Act and prayed that the police be directed to hand over the goods along with the car to the Customs authorities for necessary action. The Magistrate called the report of the S.H O., Karol Bagh and made an order for handing over the goods and the car to the customs authorities. A few days thereafter Tarlok Singh made an application .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edings under section 124 of the Act. I do not agree with this contention. Section 2(14) and 2(22) of the Act define the expressions 'dutiable goods" and "goods". The two definitions read as follows : "2. (14) "dutiable goods" means any goods which are chargeable to duty and on which duty has not been Paid; **** 2. (22) "goods" includes - (a) vessels, aircrafts and vehicles ; (b) stores; (c) baggage; (d) currency and negotiable instruments; and (e) any other kind of movable property ;' The words employed in section 110 (1) are "any goods" and this expression would obviously include both "dutiable goods" and "goods" as defined in Section 2(22). Section 115 (2) clearly provides that any conveyance or animals used as a means o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion No. 988 of 1965) the police had seized a lorry loaded with bundles of cigarettes and cloves of foreign origin from the custody of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 therein. Party No. 1 was the driver of the lorry and party No. 5 was the owner thereof. The seizures in both the cases were made by the police under section 54 Cr. P.C./ 411 I.P.C. While the case was pending for investigation the customs authorities made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate praying for a direction on the Investigating Officer concerned to hand over the seized goods to the customs authorities at the conclusion of the investigation or trial to facilitate proceedings under the Customs law against the concerned offenders. The police ultimately submitted f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to see in the matter of disposal of property under section 523 Cr. P.C. is that the order that is passed is an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are practical difficulties in the metter of refusing to act up to the prayer made by the Customs Authorities in the exercise of power granted to them under the Act. Under the Customs Act itself, the Customs Authorities would have the power given to them in section 110 to seize the goods from the custody of the police and there may be a conflict between the Customs Authorities eager to exercise their powers and the police authorities anxious to carry out the orders of the Court. Then again if under the orders of the Magistrate the Customs people have to make t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ending adjudication under section 124. 7. Mr. Prem further drew my attention to the following authorities : Deo Dutta Sharma v. Manohar Lal and Ors. 1964 PLR. Vol. 76 P. 16; Charan Singh v. Gehl Singh and another, 1974 P.L.R. Vol. 76 P. 115; State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Azad Bharat Finance Co. and another, AIR 1967 SC 276, I have gone through the cited authorities and, in my view, they are not applicable to the case in hand. Mr. Prem next contended that the seizure under section 110(1) was not by a duly authorised officer and, therefore, there is no legal and valid seizure. There is nothing on record to support the above contention. Section 2(34) of the Act defines the expression "proper officer" and the definition reads as under: .....

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