Customs Act: Court justifies refusal of currency release, directs prompt decision & fair process

The Court held that the refusal to grant unconditional release of the foreign currency seized under the Customs Act was justified. It was found that the show cause notice was served in compliance with Section 124(a) of the Act, allowing the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner's objections. The Court directed the authority to make a decision within four weeks, providing the petitioner with the opportunity to present all grounds for a fair adjudication process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refusal to grant unconditional release of foreign currency seized under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Compliance with Section 124(a) of the Act regarding issuance of show cause notice within six months of seizure.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refusal to grant unconditional release of foreign currency seized
The petitioner, a resident of Uppala village, Kerala, was intercepted and arrested for carrying foreign currency equivalent to INR 21,18,000 in contravention of the Customs Act. The petitioner, a bonafide passenger with valid documents, claimed eligibility to carry the currency. The foreign currency was seized by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner sought unconditional release, which was refused, leading to the writ petition.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 124(a) of the Act
The petitioner argued that the show cause notice, a prerequisite under Section 124(a) of the Act, was not served within six months of seizure. The authorities claimed to have affixed the notice on the main gate of the petitioner's premises as per Section 153(1)(e) of the Act after the original notice was returned unserved. The Revenue contended that the notice was served in compliance with the Act, and the petitioner's objections could be raised before the adjudicating authority.

The Court noted that Section 124(a) requires a show cause notice before confiscation, while Section 110 deals with seizure of goods. The modes of service under Section 153 include registered post, speed post, or affixing at the last known place of residence. The notice, dispatched via speed post, was returned unserved, leading to affixation on the petitioner's residence as per Section 153(1)(e). The Court found the service of notice in compliance with the Act, allowing the adjudicating authority to consider the objections raised by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner's objections and make a decision within four weeks. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to present all grounds before the authority for a fair adjudication process.

---