Customs seizure law bars implied re-seizure of restored goods after statutory return period lapses.

Section 110(1) of the Customs Act permits seizure only where the proper officer has reason to believe goods are liable to confiscation, while Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods if no notice under Section 124(a) is issued within six months, subject to extension for sufficient cause. The Calcutta HC treated these provisions as a strict limitation on State interference with property and held that no implied power to re-seize the same goods exists after restoration. Repeated seizure was considered inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the right to property. The impugned seizure was therefore quashed and return of the goods directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proper officer had power under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to re-seize the same goods after they had been restored to the petitioner, and whether the impugned seizure was liable to be quashed with a direction for return of the goods.

Analysis: Section 110(1) authorises seizure where the proper officer has reason to believe that goods are liable to confiscation, while Section 110(2) mandates return of the seized goods if no notice under Section 124(a) is given within six months, subject only to extension by the Collector for sufficient cause. The provision was treated as a restriction on the citizen's right to retain property and therefore required strict construction. The absence of any express power to re-seize after restoration was held significant, and reading such a power into Section 110(1) was considered inconsistent with the mandate of Section 110(2), destructive of the statutory scheme, and contrary to the legislative intent. The Court also noted that repeated seizure of the same goods would seriously encroach upon the constitutional right to property.

Conclusion: The proper officer had no power to re-seize the same goods after their restoration, and the impugned seizure was illegal and liable to be quashed. The goods were directed to be returned to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The judgment protects the statutory right to restoration of seized goods when no valid notice is issued within time and rejects any implied power of repeated seizure under the customs seizure provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs statute mandates return of seized goods if notice is not issued within the prescribed time, no implied power of re-seizure can be read into the seizure provision in the absence of express legislative authority.

---