Court Orders Unconditional Release of Seized Goods, Resolves Identity Dispute

The court ruled that the failure to issue a show cause notice within the specified period resulted in the unconditional release of seized goods. It was declared that the seizure order was statutorily dissolved, leading to the unconditional release of the goods. The court directed the release of the goods within two weeks and the cancellation of related guarantees. A dispute over the petitioner's identity was resolved, ordering the release of the bank guarantee in favor of the rightful owner, Mr. Rakesh Divedi. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Seizure of goods without issuance of show cause notice u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the stipulated period.

Judgment Summary:

The main contention raised was regarding the seizure of goods without the issuance of a show cause notice within the prescribed time frame. The petitioner argued that as per a Division Bench decision, failure to issue a show cause notice within the specified period results in the unconditional release of the goods. Citing previous cases, it was emphasized that the goods, released provisionally subject to conditions, should be unconditionally released in favor of the petitioner. The court referred to the mandatory nature of Section 110(2) and its proviso, stating that failure to issue a show cause notice within the specified period leads to the return of seized goods to the rightful owner.

In line with the precedent set by the Division Bench decision, it was declared that the effect of not issuing a show cause notice under Section 124 led to the statutory dissolution of the seizure order, resulting in the unconditional release of the goods. The court directed that if the goods had not been released, they should be released within two weeks, and any related guarantees, like bank guarantees, should be canceled and returned to the petitioner.

A dispute arose regarding the identity of the petitioner, with the respondent claiming it to be Kore Koncepts, a sole proprietorship of Mr. Ravinder Singh. However, an affidavit from Mr. Ravinder Singh clarified that the goods belonged to Mr. Rakesh Divedi, who had pursued the matter and fulfilled all requirements for the release of goods. Therefore, the court ordered the release of the bank guarantee in favor of Mr. Rakesh Divedi by a specified date.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of, and the court directed the necessary actions to release the goods and cancel the bank guarantee in accordance with the judgment.

---