1979 (4) TMI 33 - HC - Customs

Proper officer lacked authority to re-seize goods under Customs Act: Court emphasizes strict interpretation

The Court ruled that the proper officer lacked authority to re-seize goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 after their return to the ... Re-seizure of goods Issues:1. Whether the proper officer has the power to re-seize goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 after their restoration to the petitioner.2. Whether the goods seized in 1969 and again in 1974 constitute separate seizures.3. Interpretation of Section 110(1) and Section 110(2) of the Act regarding the return of seized goods.4. Whether the proper officer has the authority to re-seize goods after their restoration to the same person.5. Examination of the legislative intent behind the absence of explicit provisions for re-seizure in Section 110(1).Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment concerns a Rule Nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the re-seizure of goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner sought the return of goods seized earlier. The scope of the Rule was limited to the power of the proper officer to re-seize goods after their restoration to the petitioner.2. The goods were initially seized in 1969 and returned to the petitioner following a court order quashing an ex parte extension of notice. However, in 1974, the proper officer re-seized the goods, leading to the current legal challenge.3. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 110(1) and Section 110(2) of the Act, emphasizing that the proper officer's power to seize goods should be strictly construed. Section 110(2) mandates the return of seized goods if no notice is given within six months, without provision for re-seizure.4. The respondent argued that the 1974 seizure was separate due to the addition of a sari not seized in 1969. However, the Court found no merit in this argument, stating that even if the sari was not seized in 1969, it did not constitute a different seizure in 1974.5. The Court rejected the respondent's arguments, emphasizing that the absence of explicit re-seizure provisions in Section 110(1) indicated legislative intent. Allowing re-seizure after restoration would infringe on the petitioner's fundamental right to property and undermine the statutory framework.6. Ultimately, the Court quashed the impugned seizure, directing the return of goods to the petitioner. It highlighted that the order would not affect pending or future proceedings under the Act and criticized the authorities for attempting to circumvent the court's order. The judgment concluded by refusing a stay and providing copies of the order to both parties' advocates.