Seized Jewelry Released: Lack of Proof on Show Cause Notices

The Court ordered the release of seized diamond studded gold jewellery to the Petitioners due to the lack of convincing proof of timely service of show cause notices (SCNs) as required by law. The judgment directed the release of specific gold items to each Petitioner, pending the submission of separate affidavits committing to produce gold of the same quantity and purity. The Court also instructed the Respondents to provide an affidavit regarding the missing documents and postponed further adjudication until the inquiry's outcome is disclosed. The decision underscored the significance of substantiating claims of SCN service within the prescribed timeframe for equitable resolution of customs disputes.

---

---

Issues:
Release of seized diamond studded gold jewellery based on non-service of show cause notice (SCN) within the mandatory period under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with two petitions where the Petitioners sought the release of seized diamond studded gold jewellery, arguing that the show cause notice (SCN) was not served within the required period. The facts of both cases were similar, involving the detention and seizure of gold from one individual carrying it from Mumbai to Delhi and another individual connected to the first. The core issue was whether SCNs were served on the Petitioners within six months of the seizure, as mandated by law.

In response to the petitions, a counter-affidavit was filed by an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, asserting that SCNs were issued and served on the Petitioners within the stipulated timeframe. The counter-affidavit included details of the SCNs dated 19th June 2018 and acknowledgments of receipt by the Petitioners. However, the Petitioners filed rejoinders disputing the service of SCNs, alleging that the documents provided were manipulated or forged, with discrepancies in dates and signatures. The original file related to the issuance of the SCN and connected documents were ordered to be produced before the Court.

The Court noted the unavailability of original acknowledgments in the file and directed the release of the seized goods to the Petitioners due to the failure to provide convincing proof of service of SCNs within the specified time. The judgment ordered the release of gold bars to one Petitioner and gold jewellery to another, subject to the filing of separate affidavits undertaking to produce gold of the same quantity and purity as directed by the Court. The Court also instructed the Respondents to provide an affidavit on the outcome of the inquiry into the missing documents before the next hearing date, keeping the adjudication orders in abeyance until then.

Overall, the judgment focused on the procedural aspect of serving SCNs within the statutory period and emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of service to ensure fair adjudication in customs-related matters.

---