1978 (4) TMI 102 - HC - Customs

Court upholds car seizure under Customs Act, denies return petition. Broad 'goods' definition covers smuggled vehicles.

The court upheld the seizure of a car under the Customs Act, dismissing a petition seeking its return pending adjudication. Emphasizing the Act's broad ... Power of a customs officer to seize any goods believed to be liable to confiscation - procedure for confiscation and requirement of notice before confiscation - legal consequence of failure to give notice within six months - concept of 'goods' to include vehicles and conveyances - conveyance used for smuggling liable to confiscation unless owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance - requirement that seizure be effected by a duly authorised 'proper officer'Power of a customs officer to seize any goods believed to be liable to confiscation - concept of 'goods' to include vehicles and conveyances - procedure for confiscation and requirement of notice before confiscation - legal consequence of failure to give notice within six months - Whether the car seized during investigation could be released on superdari to the owner pending adjudication under the Customs Act - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the expression 'any goods' used in the seizure provision includes vehicles by reference to the statutory definition of 'goods' which expressly includes vehicles and conveyances. Where a conveyance is alleged to have been used in smuggling, it falls within the power of the customs officer to seize and the statutory confiscation procedure, including the duty to give notice before confiscation, must be followed. There is no provision in the Act for handing over seized property to the owner on superdari pending adjudication where the seizure has been made under the relevant seizure provision; if no notice as required is given within the statutory period the statutory consequence of return follows, but that consequence cannot be supplanted by an interim release on superdari. The Court therefore declined to follow the practical approach in the cited Calcutta decision insofar as it would permit interim return of a conveyance seized under the Act without application of the statutory procedure. [Paras 5, 6, 10]The car could not be released on superdari pending adjudication; the statutory seizure and confiscation procedure governs and must be followed.Requirement that seizure be effected by a duly authorised 'proper officer' - Whether the seizure was invalid because it was not effected by a duly authorised officer - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the contention that the seizure was not by a duly authorised officer and found no material on record to support that contention. The application for seizure was made by a customs inspector (preventive), and there was no plea before the Magistrate challenging the authority of the officer who applied for seizure. In the absence of any such challenge or evidence, the contention that the seizure was invalid for want of proper authorisation was rejected. [Paras 6]The seizure was not shown to be invalid for want of authorisation; the contention that it was by an unauthorised officer is without merit.Final Conclusion: The revision petition is dismissed; the High Court upheld the validity of the seizure and refused the petitioner's claim for interim release of the car pending statutory adjudication under the Customs Act. Issues:1. Seizure of goods under the Customs Act, 1962 and return of the car pending adjudication.2. Legal authority for seizure under section 110(1) of the Act.3. Applicability of previous court judgments to the current case.4. Contention regarding the car being used for a wedding and potential loss to the owner.Analysis:1. The case involves the seizure of cloth worth Rs. 50,000 from a car, suspected to be illegally imported, leading to the arrest of individuals. The Customs Inspector applied for seizure under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Magistrate ordered the goods and car to be handed over to customs authorities. A subsequent application for the release of the car was opposed, and the Magistrate dismissed it, prompting a revision petition. The legal controversy arises from the provisions of the Act regarding the seizure of goods and the return of the car pending adjudication under section 124.2. The petitioner argued that the car, not being dutiable goods, should be returned on superdari pending proceedings under section 124. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the Act defines 'goods' broadly to include vehicles like the car used in transporting smuggled goods. The scheme of the Act allows for the seizure of conveyances involved in smuggling, subject to the procedures outlined in sections 110 and 124. The court referenced a previous judgment to support the authority of customs officers to seize goods under the Act.3. Previous court judgments cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable to the current case. The court distinguished the facts and legal principles of those cases from the present scenario, emphasizing the specific provisions and context of the Customs Act in the matter at hand.4. The petitioner's argument that the car was intended for a wedding and returning it would prevent its deterioration was dismissed by the court. The court highlighted the stringent measures in the Act to combat smuggling, emphasizing the legal obligation for customs authorities to initiate confiscation proceedings within six months of seizure. The potential loss to the owner was not considered sufficient grounds for returning the car pending adjudication.In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the seizure of the car under the Customs Act and rejecting the request for its release on superdari.