Court quashes order confiscating car & silver under Customs Act 1962 in Article 226 challenge. Lack of evidence highlighted.

The court quashed the order confiscating an ambassador car and silver under the Customs Act, 1962, in response to a challenge under Article 226. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the violation of statutory provisions, criticized procedural flaws violating natural justice principles, and emphasized the petitioner's right to establish ownership. The Collector was directed to re-examine the case, allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal, with costs awarded to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order confiscating an ambassador car and silver under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under Article 226 challenging an order confiscating an ambassador car and silver under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, engaged in money-lending and silver business, had silver seized while being transported for melting. The Collector's order was contested on various grounds. Firstly, lack of material supporting violation of Section 11K of the Act or Specified Goods Rules was raised. Secondly, the proceedings were criticized for violating principles of natural justice. Thirdly, the seizure was questioned due to the seizing officer's lack of authority and absence of reasonable belief for confiscation. Lastly, applicability of Section 114 of the Act was disputed. The Assistant Collector supported the order, while the petitioner and others denied ownership of the seized silver. The petitioner's stance on the lack of necessity for a transport voucher due to the non-specified area of seizure was highlighted. The judgment emphasized the importance of strict construction of statutory provisions and the Department's failure to discharge the burden of proof. The violation of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his claim was noted.

The judgment further addressed the denial of the petitioner's request for cross-examination and the Collector's failure to consider the statutory burden of proof. The judgment cited a Supreme Court decision and emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to establish ownership and substantiate his claim. The Collector's lack of authority under Section 106A, inapplicability of Section 114, and the ongoing appeal by one of the parties were mentioned. Ultimately, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter remitted to the Collector for fresh disposal. The Collector was directed to re-examine the alleged violation of Section 11K, giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ application, ordering a fresh disposal within two months, granting costs to the petitioner, and assessing a hearing fee to be collected from the Collector.

---