1985 (10) TMI 98 - HC - Customs

Unjustified Detention of Goods Without Proper Extension: High Court Orders Immediate Release

The High Court found that the detention of goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act without proper extension beyond six months under the Customs Act ... Search and seizure Issues:Detention and seizure of goods under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 without proper extension of the detention period under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm dealing in copper billets, sought a writ of mandamus for the release of detained goods and seized records by the Union of India, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, and the Director of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise) Wing, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi.2. The petitioner's premises were raided by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, resulting in the detention of various items and seizure of records. The petitioner contended that the seized goods were duty-paid and made representations for their release.3. The petitioner received summonses and show cause notices related to the detained goods, alleging delays and lack of proper communication regarding the proceedings.4. The petitioner argued that under section 110 of the Customs Act, the detention of goods cannot exceed six months without extension. The respondents claimed that delays were caused by the petitioner, justifying the continued detention.5. The High Court found that there was no order extending the detention period beyond six months from the date of seizure. Notices and actions taken by the authorities were deemed untimely, with the detention period expiring without proper authorization for extension.6. Consequently, the Court held that the continued detention of the seized goods was unjustified and ordered the immediate release of the goods and records. The Court emphasized that in the absence of a valid extension, the goods must be returned to the petitioner as per the provisions of section 110(2) of the Customs Act.7. The judgment allowed the writ petition, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the seized goods and records promptly. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, considering the circumstances of the case.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues surrounding the detention and release of goods under relevant statutes, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements for extensions and justifying continued detentions.