Timely extension under customs seizure law must precede expiry; retrospective extension cannot justify continued detention of goods.

An extension of time for issuing notice under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act had to be made within the original six-month seizure period. Once that period expired without a valid extension, the owner's right to return of the seized goods became enforceable and could not be defeated by a later retrospective order. A subsequent extension under the Gold Control Act did not cure the defect where the seizure was under the Customs Act. The impugned extension was therefore invalid, and return of the seized property followed, subject to the excluded gold guineas not claimed by the owner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector could validly extend the period for issuance of notice under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 after the expiry of six months from seizure, and whether the subsequent extension order could sustain retention of the seized goods.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 to be issued within six months of seizure, failing which the seized goods had to be returned. The proviso empowered the Collector to extend the six-month period on sufficient cause being shown, but the language was construed as requiring the extension order itself to be made within the subsisting period so that the Customs authorities retained continuous lawful possession. Once the six-month period expired without a valid extension, the owner acquired a vested right to claim return of the goods, and that right could not be defeated by a later order purporting to extend time retrospectively. The extension granted under Section 79 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 did not cure the defect because the seizure had been made under the Customs Act and the separate Gold Control extension could not justify continued detention under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The extension order passed after expiry of the initial six-month period was invalid, and the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized goods, except the gold guineas not claimed by him.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part, with the impugned customs extension quashed and consequential relief granted for return of the seized property, subject to the limited exclusion noted by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An extension under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 must be granted before expiry of the original statutory period, because once that period lapses the owner's right to return of the seized goods becomes enforceable and cannot be defeated by retrospective extension.

---