Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Customs Penalty Order

The court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking to quash an order imposing a personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that the Customs Authorities' order was proper and in compliance with the law. The appellant's argument that notice requirements under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act were not met was rejected. The court held that the notice sent by registered post within six months was sufficient, emphasizing proper service of notice. Additionally, the court found the service of notice by registered post, returned with the endorsement 'Left', to be adequate under Section 153 of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act regarding notice requirements.
2. Sufficiency of service of notice by registered post under Section 153 of the Act.

Compliance with Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act regarding notice requirements:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash an order imposing a personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petition was dismissed by the lower court, stating that the Customs Authorities' order was proper and in accordance with the law. The appellant contended that the notice requirements under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act were not complied with. The appellant argued that as no notice of intention to seize the goods was served within six months from the date of seizure, the proceedings are void. Section 110(2) mandates that goods seized must have a notice served within six months, failing which the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Section 124(a) requires a written notice to the owner or person before confiscation or imposing a penalty. The dispute arose over the service of a notice sent by registered post, returned with the endorsement 'left'. The court held that the notice sent by registered post within six months was sufficient, and the appellant's argument was not valid. The court emphasized that the service of notice was properly effected, and the appeal was dismissed.

Sufficiency of service of notice by registered post under Section 153 of the Act:
The main issue was whether the service of notice by registered post, returned with the endorsement 'Left', was adequate. Section 153 of the Act requires that any order or decision under the Customs Act shall be served by tendering or sending it by registered post to the intended person. The appellant argued that the 'left' endorsement on the notice rendered it improper service. However, the court cited Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, stating that service by post is deemed proper if the document is correctly addressed, prepaid, and posted by registered post. The court noted that the notice was sent to the proper address, prepaid, and posted by registered post, meeting the legal requirements for service. The court concluded that the 'left' endorsement was not enough to prove improper service, and the notice was effectively served. Consequently, the Writ Petition was rightly dismissed, and the appeal failed, leading to its dismissal.

---