Customs Act Violation: Seized Goods Ordered Returned

The court held that the Customs authorities' seizure of goods was illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The court directed the authorities to return the seized gold ornaments and iPhones to the petitioners within eight weeks. The petitioners' claim for the return of goods was granted, and the request for a stay of the order was denied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 110(2), Section 124, and Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Customs authorities.
4. Right to return of seized goods due to non-compliance with statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of Goods:
The petitioners challenged the seizure of gold ornaments and two iPhones by the Customs authorities on 11-2-2017 at Ahmedabad International Airport, claiming the action was unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The seizure was conducted under the Customs Act, 1962, specifically invoking Section 110.

2. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions:
The petitioners argued that the Customs authorities failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, which states that if no notice is given under Section 124(a) within six months of the seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized. The petitioners contended that no such notice was served within the stipulated period, thus violating their statutory rights.

3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The Customs authorities claimed that a show cause notice dated 9-8-2017 was issued and dispatched on 10-8-2017, within the six-month period. The notice was allegedly delivered to the petitioners' residence and also affixed on the notice board of the Customs House. However, the petitioners denied receiving any such notice and argued that merely dispatching the notice does not fulfill the requirement of "giving" notice as interpreted by various court decisions.

4. Right to Return of Seized Goods:
The petitioners cited several judicial precedents, including Ambalal Moraraji Soni v. Union of India and Purshottam Jajodia v. DIR. of Revenue Intelligence, to support their claim that the right to return of seized goods is a civil right that accrues if the notice is not received within six months. The court noted that the Customs authorities did not provide sufficient proof of proper service of the notice as required under Section 153 of the Customs Act.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the Customs authorities failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 110(2), 124, and 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that the action of the respondent authorities in not returning the seized goods was illegal. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the Customs authorities to return all the seized gold ornaments and two iPhones to the petitioners within eight weeks, subject to adjudication proceedings to be carried out afresh in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the court ordered the return of the seized goods to the petitioners due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions by the Customs authorities. The request for a stay of the order was rejected.

---