TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the diamonds could be directed to be returned on the ground that the initial seizure by the Enforcement Directorate was without authority of law and (ii) whether the Customs Officers validly seized the diamonds under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the sufficiency of reasonable belief and the computation and extension of the six-month period for notice under section 110(2).
Issue (i): whether the diamonds could be directed to be returned on the ground that the initial seizure by the Enforcement Directorate was without authority of law.
Analysis: The initial seizure by the Enforcement Directorate was found to be without authority of law, but the goods were no longer in its custody when relief was sought. Directions for return could not effectively be issued against officers who no longer held the goods, and such relief would be infructuous.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to an for return of the diamonds from the Enforcement Directorate.
Issue (ii): whether the Customs Officers validly seized the diamonds under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the sufficiency of reasonable belief and the computation and extension of the six-month period for notice under section 110(2).
Analysis: Section 110 requires seizure by a proper officer on a reasonable belief that the goods are liable to confiscation. The Court held that the transfer of possession to the Customs Officers on 4 September 1964 constituted a valid seizure within the meaning of the provision. The Court further held that the day of seizure must be excluded in computing the six-month period under section 110(2), so the limitation expired at midnight on 4 March 1965, making the Collector's extension valid. The challenge to sufficiency of cause for extension was also rejected.
Conclusion: The Customs seizure and the extension of time were valid, and the notice requirement under section 110(2) was not violated.
Issue (iii): whether the appellant in Appeal No. 3 of 1965 had failed to establish that his packet of diamonds was seized by the Customs Officers.
Analysis: The appellant's own statement showed that the Customs authorities had taken charge of the packet and re-sealed it in his presence, and the Collector also asserted seizure by proper Customs Officers. The contention that the packet was not seized by Customs was therefore unsupported.
Conclusion: The contention failed and the packet was treated as validly seized by the Customs Officers.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in substance because the subsequent Customs seizure was upheld and the limitation challenge was rejected, while the challenge to the initial unauthorized seizure did not yield any effective relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For computing a statutory period expressed as running from the seizure of goods, the day of seizure is excluded, and a later seizure by a competent customs officer may be valid even if the goods had earlier been wrongfully taken possession of by another authority.
TaxTMI 
