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

1994 (7) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... would only be that the seized goods are returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. It would not render the initial seizure of the goods illegal. We, therefore, hold that the seizure of the goods under Section 110(1) by itself is sufficient to comply with the requisite condition under Section 123 of the Act. What happens to the goods thereafter is of no consequence. Appeal dismissed. - 1913 of 1974 - - - Dated:- 18-7-1994 - Kuldip Singh and S. Mohan, JJ. [Judgmnt per : Kuldip Singh, J.]. - The question for our consideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) would be attracted in a case where the retention of the goods has become illegal under Section 110(2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 110 of the Act was given on December 19, 1969. The said notice, having been served on the appellant after the statutory period of six months, was invalid and illegal. It was further contended that the notice being invalid, the appellant was entitled to the return of the seized goods under Section 110(2) of the Act and further the Customs authorities were debarred from holding the adjudication proceedings in respect of the goods in dispute. In other words, it was contended that once the notice under Section 110(2) of the Act is invalid, no proceedings for confiscation of the seized goods can thereafter continue. The High Court, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Assistant Collector, Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 14 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty were proceeded with and the proceedings ended in the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty vide order Ex. `D'. As the goods have already been ordered to be confiscated the question of return of goods after the period of six months as mentioned in Section 110 of the Act cannot survive." 4. The High Court further noticed the provisions of Sections 110, 111, 112, and 124 of the Act and observed as under :- "These words are of widest import and they cannot be given a restricted meaning as is sought to be given by the learned advocate for the petitioner. There is nothing in these provisions to indicate that the goods in respect of which an order of confiscation or penalty ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on under this Act, he may seize such goods : Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may 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. (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 : Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. (3) ............... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e goods were smuggled. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the seizure of the goods became illegal due to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act and, as such, one of the conditions for the applicability of Section 123 is not satisfied. There is no force in the contention. The goods were seized under Section 110(1) of the Act by the proper officer on the ground that he had reason to believe that the goods in dispute were liable to be confiscated under the Act. The seizure when made was in accordance with law and no fault could be found with the same. When the goods are seized under Section 110(1) of the Act that amounts to seizure of the goods under the Act and one o .....

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