Supreme Court affirms Customs Act confiscation, dismisses challenges on notice and penalty.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision not to entertain the petition challenging the confiscation of wrist watches under the Customs Act. The petitioner's challenges regarding the extension of time for the show cause notice issuance and the determination of the penalty amount were dismissed. The Court found the Collector's order valid, the extension of time for notice issuance appropriate, and the penalty amount not excessive or arbitrary. The special leave petition was rejected, affirming the validity of the confiscation orders and penalty imposition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order directing confiscation of wrist watches under the Customs Act.
2. Extension of time for issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act.
3. Determination of the value of the seized watches for penalty calculation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation of wrist watches under the Customs Act, which were seized from his possession. The High Court noted the seizure details and the petitioner's failure to refute the allegations. The Collector's order, upheld on appeal and revision, was found to be valid based on the facts presented.

2. The issue of extension of time for the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act was raised. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed period and without proper opportunity. The High Court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments to determine that the extension was valid as the petitioner failed to raise objections at earlier stages, indicating sufficient opportunity was given.

3. The determination of the value of the seized watches for penalty calculation was challenged as arbitrary. The High Court found that the value was mentioned in the show cause notice and not refuted by the petitioner. The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Act was on the petitioner, which he failed to discharge. The High Court also considered the delay in penalty payment by the petitioner as a factor in determining the penalty amount, which was found not to be excessive or arbitrary based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision not to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, declining to interfere under Article 136. The special leave petition was rejected, affirming the validity of the orders related to the confiscation of wrist watches and penalty imposition.

---