Court Orders Timely Decision on Seized Gold Release Request The court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's request for provisional release of seized gold within one month, emphasizing that the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court Orders Timely Decision on Seized Gold Release Request
The court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's request for provisional release of seized gold within one month, emphasizing that the Covid-19 lockdown extension for adjudication proceedings did not apply to provisional release under Section 110(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
Issues: Challenge to seizure of gold and cash under Customs Act 1962 - Delay in initiation of adjudication proceedings - Extension of time due to Covid-19 lockdown - Application for provisional release of goods pending.
Analysis: The petitioner, a goldsmith, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the seizure of 2,253 grams of gold and Rs. 27 lakhs in cash on 16.10.2019 by Customs Officers. The petitioner claimed to have a valid license and availed loans for business expansion. The petitioner argued that as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962, goods seized should be returned if no notice is given for adjudication within six months. An application for provisional release of gold was submitted on 24.10.2019, but no action was taken despite the lapse of the six-month period.
The Customs authority contended that due to the Covid-19 lockdown, the period for initiating adjudication proceedings was extended from 16.04.2020 to 30.06.2020, further extended to 15.10.2020. The authority acknowledged the application for provisional release and agreed to adhere to any direction from the court. The court noted the extension of time granted by the Commissioner but emphasized that the extension does not apply if goods are provisionally released under Section 110(a). The court found that the application for provisional release can be decided independently of the adjudication proceedings under Section 124.
After considering the arguments and documents, the court decided to issue directions to the respondent to decide on the request for provisional release of goods submitted by the petitioner within one month from the date of the judgment. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
