TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders seized gold jewellery and locker key returned to petitioner due to failure to issue show cause notice.</h1> <h3>Kusum Singh Versus Union Of India & Anr.</h3> Kusum Singh Versus Union Of India & Anr. - 2018 (362) E.L.T. 737 (Del.) Issues:1. Detention of gold jewellery and valuables in a locker during search and seizure proceedings by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).2. Allegations by DRI regarding fraudulent activities and failure to disclose sources of funds.3. Interpretation of Sections 110, 110A, and 124 of the Customs Act.4. Effect of non-issuance of show cause notice within the statutory period on the release of seized goods.5. Petitioner's entitlement to the release of articles and locker key.Analysis:1. The petitioner's grievance arises from the detention of gold jewellery and valuables found in a Corporation Bank locker during search and seizure by the DRI. The petitioner sought directions for the release of the key and articles, citing Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The DRI alleged fraudulent activities and failure to disclose the source of funds for the jewellery, leading to the detention. The petitioner relied on precedents to support her claim for release.2. The judgment analyzed the provisions of Section 110, 110A, and 124 of the Customs Act in light of previous court decisions. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 110(2) and the consequences of not issuing a show cause notice within the specified time. It discussed the effect of provisional release under Section 110A and clarified that it does not override the operation of Section 110(2) regarding the release of seized goods.3. The Court highlighted the importance of statutory timelines and consequences for non-compliance, citing relevant legal precedents. It emphasized that the expiration of the one-year period without a show cause notice results in the unconditional release of seized goods. The judgment clarified that the existence of Section 110-A does not diminish the mandatory nature of Section 110(2) in terms of releasing seized goods.4. In the specific case, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the release of the articles and locker key since the statutory timelines had lapsed without a show cause notice being issued. The judgment directed the respondents to return the locker key and allow the petitioner to utilize the jewellery found during the search. The Court upheld the petitioner's right to access her property and ordered the release of the seized items within two weeks.5. Overall, the judgment focused on the legal interpretation of relevant sections of the Customs Act, the mandatory nature of statutory provisions, and the petitioner's entitlement to the release of seized goods based on non-compliance with the show cause notice requirement. The Court's decision favored the petitioner's claim for the release of the detained articles and the locker key.
TaxTMI 