TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with law and the writ petitioners will be entitled, if aggrieved, to move afresh against the order to be passed upon such further proceedings. 3.The facts of the case are summarised below :- On 14th November, 1992 a truck bearing No. WBL 5972 was intercepted by the personnel of the Border Security Force. The truck at the time of such interception was loaded with cycle parts. On 14th November, 1992 such cycle parts were handed over to the Inspector of Customs who in turn seized such cycle parts on the same day after preparation of an inventory of such seized goods. On 17th November, 1992 the writ petitioners, ten in number, claiming to be owners of such seized cycle parts, applied for release of the same. On 21st April, 1993 the Superintendent of Customs, Petrapole Circle, issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") to the writ petitioners directing them to appear before him in person or by authorised agents on 13th April, 1993 (wrongly written as 1992) at 12 hours. On 4th May, 1993 the Superintendent of Customs, Petrapole Circle, recorded statement of the writ petitioners in connection with the subject case. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents and things. (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." 9.Section 110(2) of the Act, therefore, provides giving of notice as contemplated by Section 124 (a) of the Act within six months from the date of seizure of the goods as a condition to retain the seized goods. In the event no such notice is given, the seized goods are liable to be returned. Section 124(a) of the Act reads as follows : "Section 124. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods etc. - No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person - (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty : Provided that the notice referred to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 and the same was received by the writ petitioner on 24th June, 1994, and held that the notice was bad since the same reached the writ petitioner beyond six months from the date of seizure by construing the word "given" as occurring in Section 110(2) of the Act to mean actual physical delivery and not mere posting. In the case Tarun Chatterjee, J., did not follow the ratio of the judgment of T.K. Basu, J., in the case of Jayantilal Morakhia v. Union of India (supra), by preferring to construe the word "given" as construed by the Supreme Court in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singuri Gowda, reported in AIR 1966 S.C. 330, where the Supreme Court in Paragraph 11 observed as follows : "Giving" of anything as ordinarily understood in the English Language is not complete unless it has reached the hands of the person to whom it has to be given. In the eye of law, however, "giving" is complete in many matters where it has been offered to a person but not accepted by him. Tendering of a notice is in law therefore, giving of a notice even though the person to whom it is tendered refuses to accept it. We can find, however, no authority or principle for the proposition that as soon as the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en" in Section 110(2) might have to be accorded a different meaning in the facts and circumstances of different cases that might rise from time to time. I am not called upon to make any pronouncement in that regard." 23.Ray, J., therefore, held that Section 153 does not control the word "given" in Section 110(2) in certain cases but may control in some other cases. 24.It is well-settled that in considering the true meaning of words or expressions used by the legislature the Court must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the Statute to be read in its entirety. (Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 1241 at 1265). 25.The object in setting a time-limit in Section 110(2) was to expedite proceedings so as not to harass a citizen whose goods may have been wrongfully seized. The object has been stated by M.P. Menon, J., in C.D. Gonda Rao v. Additional Secretary, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 270, in relation to Section 79 of the Gold Control Act, which is similar to Section 110 of the Customs Act, as follows : "The purpose behind Section 79 is two-fold. The first is that confiscation shall be ordered without the conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not sit idle. It has to make the concerned person aware of such case by giving the written notice. The question therefore is how to give such notice. 30.The only mode or manner of serving of notices issued under the Act has been provided in Section 153. The legislature in Section 153 of the Act gave a clear mandate that any notice issued under the Act should be served in the manner provided in the section. 31.The legislature, while providing that a notice under Section 110(2) must be given within the time as specified in the said section did not provide in the section itself as to how such notice should be given, but as the same time provided that a notice under Section 110(2) should be a notice "issued" under Section 124 of the Act and "any notice", issued under the Act," which obviously includes a notice under Section 124 of the Act, should be "served" in the manner provided in Section 153 of the Act. If the legislature intended that the manner and method of giving notice under Section 110(2) should be different, then it would not have provided in the said section the words "notice in respect thereof if given under Clause (a) of Section 124" and the words "Issue of show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendered should be taken as the date of giving of notice, but if the other option is exercised and the notice is sent by registered post the date of sending the notice should be the date of giving of notice as contemplated by Section 110(2) of the Act. Any other construction will render the legislative intent of equating tender with sending by registered post otiose. 40.In the case before the Division Bench, Allahabad High Court, in Alka Watches Pvt. Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2116, no notice had at all been served and an order directing issue of notice had been passed of which knowledge was attributed to the concerned persons and on the basis thereof it was contended that the same amounted to giving of notice. In that context, the Division Bench held that giving of notice does not mean mere passing of an order for the issue of notice by an officer competent to do so, but means due service of the notice to the party concerned. The Division Bench also noted Section 153 of the Act and held that the notice issued under Section 110(2) of the Act should be served by tendering the notice to the party or by sending it by registered po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
