Court Affirms Notice Requirement in Customs Act Proceedings; Relief Denied Due to Disposed Gold Bar.

Ganesh Sawant Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) & Ors.

Ganesh Sawant Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) & Ors. - 2023 (386) E.L.T. 78 (Del.) Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of notice under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of the proceedings conducted under Section 110(1D) without notice.
3. Interpretation of Section 110(1D) in light of principles of natural justice.

Summary:

1. Issuance of notice under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act:
The petitioner challenged the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act, 1962, conducted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that, as per the decision in *Pradeep Khandelwal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) & Anr.*, notice was required to be issued to the person from whom the goods were seized.

2. Validity of the proceedings conducted under Section 110(1D) without notice:
The Court noted that the respondents returned four gold bars seized on 20.02.2021, but retained one gold bar weighing 1000 grams. The proceedings under Section 110(1D) were conducted on 21.11.2022, and the inventory was certified without notice to the petitioner. The respondents argued that Section 110(1D) does not mandate issuing notice to the person from whom goods are seized. The Court found no infirmity in the notice dated 25.11.2022 issued under Section 150 of the Customs Act and concluded that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted as the gold bar in question had already been disposed of.

3. Interpretation of Section 110(1D) in light of principles of natural justice:
The Court examined the requirement of notice under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act in light of principles of natural justice. It referred to the decision in *Ishwar Parasram Punjabi v. Union of India*, where it was held that the preparation of inventory or other steps under Section 110(1B) required notice to the person from whom goods were seized. The Court reiterated that the principles of natural justice necessitate notice and participation in such proceedings, even if not expressly mentioned in the statute. The decision in *Pradeep Khandelwal* was upheld as a binding precedent, emphasizing that the substitution of the authority (from Magistrate to Commissioner (Appeals)) did not alter the procedural requirement of issuing notice.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that although the petitioner was entitled to insist on de novo proceedings under Section 110(1D) as per the *Pradeep Khandelwal* decision, no such orders were warranted since the goods had already been sold. The petition was disposed of with these observations, and the pending application was also disposed of.