Court orders return of seized goods, grants relief on lack of hearing but dismisses challenge on notice timing.

The court partially allowed the writ petition, ordering the respondents to return the seized goods to the petitioner within 15 days due to the lack of opportunity to be heard before passing the impugned orders. However, the challenge to the notice under section 124 based on timing was dismissed, allowing the adjudication proceedings to proceed.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to show cause notice under section 124 and retention of seized goods without opportunity of being heard.

In the present case, the petitioner's premises were searched by Customs officers resulting in the seizure of goods and currency from both office and residential premises. Subsequently, an order under section 110(2) was passed on 19th October, 1968, extending the period for issuing a show cause notice under section 124. This period was further extended until the end of January 1969. A show cause notice under section 124 was finally issued on 30th January, 1969.

Regarding the retention of seized goods, it was argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the impugned orders under section 110(2) were passed. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent v. Charan Das Malhotra, it was established that no order under section 110(2) can be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the retention of goods by the respondents was deemed illegal, and the seized goods were ordered to be returned to the petitioner within 15 days.

The petitioner also challenged the validity of the notice under section 124, claiming it was not issued within six months of the seizure. However, in a separate judgment delivered by the same judge in another case, it was held that such a notice cannot be challenged solely on the grounds of timing. Therefore, the petitioner's attack on the notice under section 124 was dismissed.

In conclusion, the writ petition was partly allowed, directing the respondents to return the seized goods to the petitioner within 15 days. However, the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the notice under section 124 were allowed to continue. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---