Customs seizure law distinguishes goods from electronic records and investigative samples, limiting the six-month return rule to seized goods.

Customs seizure law distinguishes goods from documents, electronic records, and investigative samples. Files, papers, pen drives, hard disks, and floppies containing stored data are treated as documents or things, supported by the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the evidentiary recognition of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Representative samples drawn from imported or local steel materials are likewise treated as things seized for investigation, not as seized goods in their entirety. As a result, the six-month return mandate under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only to seized goods and not to materials covered by Section 110(3).

---

---

Issues: Whether files, documents, pen drives, hard disks, floppies, and representative samples seized during customs investigation constituted "goods" so as to attract the six-month return mandate under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, or whether they were "documents or things" governed by Section 110(3) and Section 110(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 110(1) and Section 110(2) apply only to seizure of goods liable to confiscation, and the statutory time-limit for return is confined to such goods if no notice under Section 124 is issued within six months. Section 110(3) separately empowers seizure of documents or things relevant to proceedings under the Act, and the scheme of Section 110, read with Section 105, shows a deliberate legislative distinction between goods and documents/things. The seized files and documents were not goods. The pen drives, hard disks, and floppies containing stored data were treated as electronic records or electronic documents, supported by the definitions in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the evidentiary recognition of electronic records under Section 65B(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The representative samples taken from imported and local steel materials were also regarded as things seized for investigation and analysis, not as goods seized in their entirety.

Conclusion: The seized materials did not fall within Section 110(1) and Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the six-month return rule was inapplicable. The request for release of the seized materials was not sustainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of customs seizure, documents, electronic records, and limited investigative samples are distinct from goods; therefore, the six-month return requirement under Section 110(2) applies only to seized goods and not to materials falling under Section 110(3).

---