Court Interprets Notice Requirement in Customs Act | Emphasizes Actual Receipt

The court interpreted the term "given" in Sections 110(2) and 124(a) of the Customs Act to require the notice to be received by the person concerned, not just dispatched. Notices not received within the stipulated period were deemed non-compliant with Section 124(a). The court emphasized the necessity of actual receipt for effective communication. Section 153 was held to govern the mode, not the timing, of notice service. The court rejected reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, emphasizing the importance of actual receipt. Following the Gujarat High Court's precedent, the court directed the release of the seized goods in favor of the petitioners.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "given" in Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Compliance with the notice period under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of Section 153 of the Customs Act regarding the service of notice.
4. Relevance of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the term "given" in Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The core issue in these writ petitions was the interpretation of the word "given" as used in Section 110(2) and Section 124(a) of the Customs Act. The court analyzed whether the term "given" meant merely dispatching the notice or if it required the notice to be received by the person concerned. The court concluded that the term "given" implies that the notice must be received by the person from whom the goods were seized. This interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in K. Narsimhiah vs. H.C. Singri Gowda, which stated that "giving" is not complete unless it reaches the hands of the person or is tendered and refused.

2. Compliance with the notice period under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act:
In the cases at hand, the court examined whether the notices were given within the stipulated period under Section 110(2). The court found that in all three cases, the notices were dispatched but not received by the petitioners within the six-month period or the extended period. The court emphasized that the objective of Section 124(a) is to inform the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty, which can only be achieved if the notice is received.

3. Applicability of Section 153 of the Customs Act regarding the service of notice:
The respondents argued that Section 153, which deals with the service of notices, should be considered. According to Section 153(a), service is deemed complete when the notice is sent by registered post. However, the court held that Section 153 defines the mode and manner of service but does not determine the time when a notice is "given." The court reiterated that the notice must be received to be considered "given."

4. Relevance of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The respondents also relied on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which states that service by post is deemed to be effected at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. The court, however, noted that this provision is qualified by the phrase "unless a different intention appears." The court found that the legislative intent in Sections 110(2) and 124(a) of the Customs Act required the notice to be received to inform the person of the grounds for confiscation or penalty.

Conclusion:
The court disagreed with the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and other High Courts that interpreted "given" as merely dispatching the notice. Instead, the court agreed with the Gujarat High Court's decision in Ambalal Morarji Soni, which required the notice to be received. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to release the seized goods unconditionally.

---