1992 (7) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Court quashes seizure order due to notice failure, orders return of goods

MUKESH JAIN AGARWAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

MUKESH JAIN AGARWAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 295 (M. P.) Issues: Petition under Art. 226 for quashment of order of seizure of goods and further proceedings for confiscation, notice under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 within six months of seizure, jurisdiction of seizure, duty of respondents to prove connection with smuggled goods.Analysis:1. The petitioners sought relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of Collector, Central Excise and Customs for the seizure of 30.130 Kgs. of silver and currency notes amounting to Rs. 1,45,000, along with a request to halt further confiscation proceedings and award exemplary costs to the respondents.2. The petitioners, involved in the business of silver, were implicated based on the statement of an individual nabbed by the authorities. The raid on petitioner No. 1's premises resulted in the seizure of silver slabs and currency notes, leading to the petition challenging the seizure order and confiscation proceedings.3. The respondents contended that the seizure was justified due to information received about the petitioners' involvement in receiving and delivering contraband goods. They argued that a notice was issued within the prescribed time limit under the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioners should exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Court.4. The crucial issue revolved around the notice requirement under clause (a) of S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, within six months of seizure. The petitioners disputed the service of the notice as claimed by the respondents, highlighting discrepancies in the documents presented by the authorities.5. The Court scrutinized the documents provided by the respondents and found no evidence of a notice served within the stipulated timeframe. The failure to establish the issuance of a notice under clause (a) of S. 124 led to a determination that the seizure lacked jurisdiction, warranting the return of the seized goods under S. 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.6. It was emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the connection of seized goods with smuggled items rested on the respondents. As silver was not classified as a notified good under the relevant section, the petitioners were not obligated to demonstrate the legitimacy of the seized silver and currency notes, which the respondents failed to establish.7. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the seizure order and directing the return of the seized silver and currency notes to the respective possessors. No costs were awarded in the matter, concluding the legal proceedings.