1975 (6) TMI 17 - HC - Customs

High Court decision on Customs Act notices: Section 112 upheld, Section 115(2) struck down

The High Court upheld the notice under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, while striking down the notice under Section 115(2). The Court found that the ... Show cause notice - Confiscation - Writ jurisdiction - Partnership firm Issues:1. Challenge to the notice under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Upholding the notice under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to the notice under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962:The case involved an appeal against a judgment where P.K. Banerjee, J. upheld the notice under Section 112 and struck down the notice under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was filed by Customs authorities against the order setting aside the notice under Section 115(2), with a cross-objection by the parties involved. The argument raised was regarding the maintainability of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution by two registered partnership firms. The High Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment to overrule this preliminary objection. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 115(2) which required proof of lack of knowledge or connivance in smuggling and adherence to specified precautions. Since no rules had been framed by the Central Government regarding these precautions, the notice under the second limb of Section 115(2) was deemed invalid and was struck down. The Court dismissed the appeal against the order of P.K. Banerjee, J. upholding the notice under Section 112.Issue 2: Upholding the notice under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:Regarding the notice under Section 112, the Court examined the evidence presented by the Customs authorities. The contention raised was that the partnership firms were not involved in any illegal importation activities. However, based on the evidence provided by the Customs authorities, it was revealed that the car under seizure was in the possession of an individual not registered as the owner. The hire-purchase agreement was executed by a sister concern of the registered owner. The Court noted that the involvement of the partnership firms in smuggling operations could not be ruled out based on the facts presented. As the investigation into the possession of the car was ongoing, the responsibility for smuggling was yet to be determined conclusively. Therefore, the notice to show cause under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, and the cross-objection was dismissed by the Court.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the notice under Section 112 while striking down the notice under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and the evidence presented, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the issues raised in the appeal.